In the public press Hillary is putting on her moderate face, but in speaking to core constituent groups we see her taking a page out of Howie's book:
Hillary told a gathering of “Women for Hillary” in Manhattan her true feelings on President Bush,
“There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,”
On Republicans in general, Clinton said, “It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."
Whoa...we all saw the hate and rage during the election, but some of these Democrats are just coming off the hinges...
The two faces of Hillary Clinton
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
I don't have a problem with this statement, but I think we can give them the top spot until we get at least ten years out and can look back with some reasonable perspective. I'd give them a nod as top five, though.“There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,”
What Hillary doesn't do, however, is put those comments in their proper context. All Presidents consolidate and many have abused their power to further their own agenda. They all stump for politicians in their party running for office, they all nominate SC Justices that lean to their way of thinking, they all appoint people to cabinet posts that set policy based on what their party wants. There's nothing new there.
No, it doesn't. Bush endorsed Thune as a wartime President and Thune barely won. Shoot, Bush barely won. And you'd have us believe that his endorsement gave the candidate an overwhelming advantage?Variable wrote:You don't think that having the President of the United States of America endorse your candidacy for Senate gives you a clear and unfair advantage over your opponent? Seriously...
That's all beside the point anyway...your perceived influence of a Presidential endorsement doesn't prove that Bush has "abused" his Presidential power/authority.
Well?
You asserted that President Bush has abused his Office to stump for candidates. You said that this represented an abuse because allegedly no one can compete with that kind of endorsement and that the endorsement is a clear and unfiar advantage.Variable wrote:Detroit, if the best you can do is present a guy who "barely" won, all you've done is helped prove my point. Thanks!
I just demonstrated that Bush's endorsement didn't have the clear and unfair influence that you suggested such an endorsement would have.
Therefore, it can only follow that your hypothesis is false.
In any case, you still haven't proven your point beyond posting your own perception...
A better example would be Al Gore abusing his Office by using his office, literally, to solicit campaign contributions. That's not only unethical, but illegal, too. Hence, he had to give the cash back. Now that's an abuse.
No, I asserted that all virtually Presidents abuse their office this way.You asserted that President Bush has abused his Office to stump for candidates.
No, you said that it didn't give him an overwhelming advantage, which is something that I never claimed. And now you're just playing semantics games by flipping your words back to "clear and unfair." Tsk, Tsk.You said that this represented an abuse because allegedly no one can compete with that kind of endorsement and that the endorsement is a clear and unfiar advantage.
I just demonstrated that Bush's endorsement didn't have the clear and unfair influence that you suggested such an endorsement would have.
It's not a hypothesis, it's an opinion.Therefore, it can only follow that your hypothesis is false.
You rarely acknowledge anyone's points other than your own as valid, so I'm not at all surprised that you don't agree with mine.In any case, you still haven't proven your point beyond posting your own perception...
Actually, that's a terrible example, since we're talking about Presidents.A better example would be Al Gore abusing his Office by using his office, literally, to solicit campaign contributions. That's not only unethical, but illegal, too. Hence, he had to give the cash back. Now that's an abuse.
I've read your posts. You're not giving yourself enough credit.This might the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen in my life.
Good job, idiot.
Semantics. You said you agreed with Hillary and she was referring specifically to Bush.No, I asserted that all virtually Presidents abuse their office this way.
Sheesh....here we go again, the typical response of someone getting plungered.No, you said that it didn't give him an overwhelming advantage, which is something that I never claimed. And now you're just playing semantics games by flipping your words back to "clear and unfair." Tsk, Tsk.
Your words, "Like anyone else can compete with something like that" and "clear and unfair advantage" gives the reader the clear impression that you felt that such an endorsement was overwhelming, ie. the opposing candidate simply couldn't compete with that.
You did use those phrases to describe why such endorsements represent an abuse, right???
Or am I seeing things?
BTW - "Clear and unfair advantage" are not my words...they are yours, dummy.
Dumb one at that.It's not a hypothesis, it's an opinion.
Validity is different than agreement.You rarely acknowledge anyone's points other than your own as valid, so I'm not at all surprised that you don't agree with mine.
I can agree with someone making an invalid argument.
I didn't question the validity of your argument. I questioned the judgment you used to reach it. And you still have not demonstrated that this is an abuse of power.
Actually, that's a terrible example, since we're talking about Presidents.
No, it's a good example because it is representative of actual abuse.
This is pathetic, Variable. How is this an abuse? Simply asserting that it is by suggesting some unproven perceived result doesn't cut it.
So lets hear it...
BTW - is this the only "abuse" you have identified? Kinda slim if you are agreeing with a Senator who says that this President has been more abusive than all others...
:roll:
-
Bizzarofelice
- I wanna be a bear
- Posts: 10216
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm
Re: The two faces of Hillary Clinton
What makes you think this statement isn't coming from a moderate? Do only liberals believe that the Bush's administration goes way beyond being a tight ship? I think this post is more of an example how much Hillary Clinton owns Dr. Detroit. Poor dumb bastard.Object of the Right's obsession wrote: “There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda.”
Fact remains she will be putting her moderate face forward. All candidates do, even if they haven't announced their candidacy quite yet. We'll just have to see if the Right tries to bring up her socialized medicine ideas of the early 90's to bring her back down.
I know. These Hillary haters are maniacal.hate and rage
Re: The two faces of Hillary Clinton
Hillary is a moderate? She voted against the partial abortion bill, parental notification, and wanted to nationalize American health care...that's moderate?Bizzarofelice wrote:What makes you think this statement isn't coming from a moderate? Do only liberals believe that the Bush's administration goes way beyond being a tight ship? I think this post is more of an example how much Hillary Clinton owns Dr. Detroit. Poor dumb bastard.