Why do conservatives get so pissed off by Hillary Clinton? [Archive]

jonapete2001

Dec 1, 2003, 12:04 AM

Here is my idea on the issue, I might have insight because I hate her. I do not know if you think it is logical, because if you did then you would probably already hate her.

1. She took the most active role a 1st lady ever did. They are not supposed to be that active IMO.

2. She had that powerfull role and tried to pass heath care, something most people do not care for.

3. She is down right scary.

4. She is not the status quo. She represents a huge change to the whole power system put in place by democrats and republicans.

5. SHe is very liberal and pretty much represents everything a conservative does not want to happen.

6. This may be harsh but she is just a b*tch.

This may not make sense to liberals but it makes sense to me. SHe is new and different(not in a good way).

And this may make sense. Have you ever come across a person for no perticular reason that just makes your blood boil and you just dont get along or like that person. She seems to do that to half the country.

And please dont bash me for saying these things. they are just my opinion and i realize that many here love the woman. great for you. Some one asked why she is hated and i responded. I can already feal the backlash I am going to get for stating my opinion.

Ugg

Dec 1, 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Here is my idea on the issue, I might have insight because I hate her. I do not know if you think it is logical, because if you did then you would probably already hate her.

1. She took the most active role a 1st lady ever did. They are not supposed to be that active IMO.

2. She had that powerfull role and tried to pass heath care, something most people do not care for.

3. She is down right scary.

4. She is not the status quo. She represents a huge change to the whole power system put in place by democrats and republicans.

5. SHe is very liberal and pretty much represents everything a conservative does not want to happen.

6. This may be harsh but she is just a b*tch.

This may not make sense to liberals but it makes sense to me. SHe is new and different(not in a good way).

And this may make sense. Have you ever come across a person for no perticular reason that just makes your blood boil and you just dont get along or like that person. She seems to do that to half the country.

And please dont bash me for saying these things. they are just my opinion and i realize that many here love the woman. great for you. Some one asked why she is hated and i responded. I can already feal the backlash I am going to get for stating my opinion.

1 is incorrect, that title goes to a certain Eleanor Roosevelt.

2. Something like 30% of Americans have no health care and another 30% are paying through the nose for it. If Americans and by extension American businesses don't want some form of government sanctioned health care, then why are so many businesses moving abroad mainly because health care costs are cheaper in countries where it is nationalized?

3. If that is your opinion then that is your opinion.

4. What do you mean by that?

5. Of all your reasons for hating her, this is the most visceral and I can understand but it translates into fear of her more than hating her.

6. Maggie Thatcher was a b****h, Hilary is just a little on the cold side. Don't you find this statement to be essentially misogynist? What is it with strong women and Republicans?

Once again, I really do feel that the majority of repbublicans really, truly hate women in power. Your statements seem to bear that out.

mactastic

Dec 1, 2003, 09:34 AM

The part where you label her a b*tch just drips of mysogeny.

Would you call Ann Coulter a teddy bear? Or is she a bitch too? How about Helen Thomas? Or Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Kate Michaelman? Are they all "b*tches" too, or do you have good things to say about the conservative women?

revenuee

Dec 1, 2003, 09:55 AM

Misogyny is exactly it guys... What could be scarier to a "Old" Conservative man then a women in power.

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 10:14 AM

I'm no Hillary Clinton fan, and I hope she never runs for president. But I think a great deal of the Hillary Hatred can be traced back to Bill Clinton, who of course was hated by Republicans with unequaled fervor. People who have that much hate in them need a transference, or they'd burst a gasket from all that undirected rage. So if just mentioning her name causes some Republicans to flip out, then I say, mention her name often -- it's good for them and it's fun for you. Everybody wins.

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 10:56 AM

If you want to understand why conservatives get so pissed off at Senator Clinton, figure out why the left gets so pissed off at President Bush. Once you've done that, you've got your answer. It might be that if conservatives hate strong women (see Mrs. Thatcher for evidence to the contrary), that liberals hate successful politicians, both men and women, who disagree with them politically and particularly ones who express moral certainty. (The Soviet Union is an Evil Empire, Tear Down this Wall!, etc. etc.).

zimv20

Dec 1, 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
If you want to understand why conservatives get so pissed off at Senator Clinton, figure out why the left gets so pissed off at President Bush. Once you've done that, you've got your answer.

nope.

this forum is full of concrete ways in which bush's policies are destroying this country.

contrast that to a woman who simply wanted the uninsured to have health coverage. don't add up.

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 11:21 AM

Some of the issues are ideological of course, but I think in the case of the Clintons it goes deeper. Hillary Clinton is nothing more then the junior Senator from New York, but that doesn't stop a lot of people who are not counted among her constituency from holding strong opinions about her, mainly negative, and often furiously negative. I've been hearing for years from the conservative camp about the cultural war they've been waging against liberalism. I think the Clintons have become icons of that war, and having another Clinton in Washington gets their goat like nothing else could.

jonapete2001

Dec 1, 2003, 11:33 AM

From my point of view it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I find that woman can be excelant politicians. If some people here think everything Bush does is a cold calculated move just take a look at Mrs. Clinton.

My hatred of her has nothing to do with her sex. My number one canidate for President in 08 is Condelisa Rice. There is a strong conservative woman who I would gladly vote for. Oh and she is black, I dont know how many times I have been wrongly labeled a racist on this board but I dont think a racist would openly advocate for a black female president.

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
nope.

this forum is full of concrete ways in which bush's policies are destroying this country.

contrast that to a woman who simply wanted the uninsured to have health coverage. don't add up.

Hillary embodied more as first lady than simply holding secret healthcare hearings. Note the similarity with Dick Cheney's energy task force, then ask yourself is the same people who were pissed at Hillary were pissed at Cheney and vice versa. Nope. It's all about the politics.

This forum is full of concrete opinions that aren't those of the American people as a whole. There seems to be a pretty big skew in the direction of Bush-hating on this forum, but that's not how most Americans feel about him. The majority of Americans respect Bush. There's a huge partisan split on Bush, just like on Senator Clinton, and I bet most here voting Democratic and so have a hard time understanding that there is more than half a country out there who respect Bush rather than hate him. Just like there are many on the left who love Hillary and hate Bush, there are many on the right who love Bush and hate Hillary. Therefore, understanding the motivations of one will help to understand the motivations of the other. And doesn't the world need more understanding? Bush is an icon to hate for the left, just like Hillary is an icon to hate for the right. Neither of them really deserve the hatred they get.

mactastic

Dec 1, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Neither of them really deserve the hatred they get.

Ultimately I think you are right, neither one should be personally hated by anyone. I think it's another symptom of the bitterness partisan politics has sunk to.

And the media hasn't helped a bit, having found that they can get better ratings with a boxing match between to extremist pols with agendas than an intelligent discussion between two opposing, but willing to talk without insulting people.

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 12:04 PM

Need I remind you (apparently I do) that Hillary Clinton is a senator from New York and George Bush is the President of the United States? Everyone in the US is entitled to an opinion about whether George Bush is leading the country skillfully -- and to say that he's failed in that regard does not count as "hatred" in my book. But to be from a state other than New York and to have strong opinions about Hillary Clinton either pro or con suggests to me that something else entirely is going on here. That other thing is cultural.

zimv20

Dec 1, 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
The majority of Americans respect Bush.

how do you figure that?

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
how do you figure that?

A recent CNN/Time Magazine poll. December 1st issue. 57 percent of those polled answered the question "In carrying out his role as President, is George W. Bush a president the country can admire?"

Yes 57%
Strongly 31%
Somewhat 26%

No 42%
Strongly 23%
Somewhat 19%

So, you can see that the majority of Americans appear to respect Bush (or at least they say he is a president the country can admire).

IJReilly,
Why the sarcasm?
Hillary Clinton has been a major actor on the national political stage for quite some time, well before she was a figure in New York politics. She isn't a local New York politician. Like RFK, she's a national figure holding a state office. Were she to run for president, she would, according to polls, secure the nomination rather easily. She's more than the Senator from New York, both to the left and to the right. She's a national figure.

zimv20

Dec 1, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
A recent CNN/Time Magazine poll. December 1st issue.

thank you

Taft

Dec 1, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Hillary embodied more as first lady than simply holding secret healthcare hearings. Note the similarity with Dick Cheney's energy task force, then ask yourself is the same people who were pissed at Hillary were pissed at Cheney and vice versa. Nope. It's all about the politics.

The two examples aren't comparable. The rage directed toward Clinton stemmed from her exclusion of conservatives during the formulation of her healthcare plan. The rage directed at Cheny stems from his close ties with corporate energy firms, the apparent conflict of interest rising from this relationship and the subsequent policies which resulted from the secret meetings (which many people find shortchanges the environment while aiding the energy corporations).

This forum is full of concrete opinions that aren't those of the American people as a whole. There seems to be a pretty big skew in the direction of Bush-hating on this forum, but that's not how most Americans feel about him. The majority of Americans respect Bush. There's a huge partisan split on Bush, just like on Senator Clinton, and I bet most here voting Democratic and so have a hard time understanding that there is more than half a country out there who respect Bush rather than hate him. Just like there are many on the left who love Hillary and hate Bush, there are many on the right who love Bush and hate Hillary. Therefore, understanding the motivations of one will help to understand the motivations of the other. And doesn't the world need more understanding? Bush is an icon to hate for the left, just like Hillary is an icon to hate for the right. Neither of them really deserve the hatred they get.

I'll agree with you on only one point: that partisan politics are too bitter and hostile these days.

You don't really address the core of zim's point: many of us on the boards have listed the numerous ways in which G.W. Bush is a bad president, and moreover, a deceitful president who caters only to industry.

Where are the specific allegations against Hillary? The single most important initiative she has ever been involved in (the healthcare fiasco you mentioned above) was an utter failure and subsequently, she hasn't been involved in directing national policy.

The bottom line? I can name for you no fewer than 10 policies implemented under Bush's watch that I find objectionable based on my personal values. You couldn't name 10 policies implemented by Hillary Clinton. This means that people are forming an opinion of her based not on her political track record, but rather on partisan loyalty or some other irrational criteria.

And "the man on the street" backs this up. Ask a person why they don't like Hillary. You get responses like, "she's too fridged," or, "she's a bitch." Do these people know Hillary Clinton? How are they qualified to make such statements? Do these things have any bearing on her ability to perform in a public office?

Taft

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Taft
The two examples aren't comparable. The rage directed toward Clinton stemmed from her exclusion of conservatives during the formulation of her healthcare plan. The rage directed at Cheny stems from his close ties with corporate energy firms, the apparent conflict of interest rising from this relationship and the subsequent policies which resulted from the secret meetings (which many people find shortchanges the environment while aiding the energy corporations).

I'll agree with you on only one point: that partisan politics are too bitter and hostile these days.

You don't really address the core of zim's point: many of us on the boards have listed the numerous ways in which G.W. Bush is a bad president, and moreover, a deceitful president who caters only to industry.

Where are the specific allegations against Hillary? The single most important initiative she has ever been involved in (the healthcare fiasco you mentioned above) was an utter failure and subsequently, she hasn't been involved in directing national policy.

The bottom line? I can name for you no fewer than 10 policies implemented under Bush's watch that I find objectionable based on my personal values. You couldn't name 10 policies implemented by Hillary Clinton. This means that people are forming an opinion of her based not on her political track record, but rather on partisan loyalty or some other irrational criteria.

And "the man on the street" backs this up. Ask a person why they don't like Hillary. You get responses like, "she's too fridged," or, "she's a bitch." Do these people know Hillary Clinton? How are they qualified to make such statements? Do these things have any bearing on her ability to perform in a public office?

Taft

Of course the example are comparable. The left is using Cheney'e energy task force as an icon to embody all it hates about the right, and the right used "Hillary care" to embody what it hated about the left. I remember hearing complaints that (libeal) environmental groups were excluded form energy policy discussions, and you tell us that conservatives were mad at Mrs. Clinton because they were excluded from the discussion. We can connect the dots and see the similarities. Hillary-haters will tell us that it is her close ties with socialism that makes them mad. Is that rational? No more than the rage at Cheney is rational.

I probably could find 10 policies implemented by the Clinton administration (an administration Hillary was a part of) I don't like, and I certainly could find 10 policies from the Bush administration that I don't like. But I don't hate Hillary Clinton or Bush. Ask the man on the street about Bush, and some will give you equally irrational responses. They don't know Bush anymore than Hillary haters know Senator Clinton. That's just how it works in today's political environment.

Even on the issues, which you say are so clear and show Bush to be a bad, deceitful president, who caters only to industry, there are many Americans out there who simply see it another way, and agree with most of his policies. The country is split right down the middle and neither side has a monoploy on the truth, IMO. Read the Time article to see what I mean.

The "bottom line" is that the left and the right aren't all that different in how they see their political opponents. A lot of people look at issues, and a lot of people look at personalities.

Taft

Dec 1, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Of course the example are comparable. The left is using Cheney'e energy task force as an icon to embody all it hates about the right, and the right used "Hillary care" to embody what it hated about the left. I remember hearing complaints that (libeal) environmental groups were excluded form energy policy discussions, and you tell us that conservatives were mad at Mrs. Clinton because they were excluded from the discussion. We can connect the dots and see the similarities. Hillary-haters will tell us that it is her close ties with socialism that makes them mad. Is that rational? No more than the rage at Cheney is rational.

We are arguing different points. You are arguing that the left and right latch onto specific actions of their opponents and use them as rallying calls to inspire hatred in the troops. I agree with that assessment. Both sides use irrational and irrelevent points to play partisan politics and confuse the American public into agreeing with them. Both sides suck.

I, on the other hand, am arguing that the crticisms directed towards Hillary are, by and large, unfounded while the criticisms leveled against Bush have basis in policy.

I probably could find 10 policies implemented by the Clinton administration (an administration Hillary was a part of) I don't like...

Involved in how? Was she implementing the policies herself? Or are you simply projecting her husbands policies onto Hillary?

Ask the man on the street about Bush, and some will give you equally irrational responses. They don't know Bush anymore than Hillary haters know Senator Clinton. That's just how it works in today's political environment.

It is true that the average american is pretty ignorant about the issues. However, if the average American turns on the news, he is likely to receive a glut of information about the decisions that Bush makes. He is also likely to get analysis of that information which may give him a clearer picture of whether he agrees with the president's positions. Iraq, the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, tax cuts, environmental policies, energy policies...we hear about them constantly. Sure, it may not be pristine information and is likely to be filled with bias and "misinformation," but the average American has ample access to the decisions Bush makes and how that decision will likely effect the public.

On the other hand, Hillary has never been president. We have never had access to a large quantity of decisions made by her. The only context in which most Americans know her is as first lady to Bill Clinton. In that context, she made few decisions.

You (and others) may equate her politics to Bill's politics, but that is hardly a fair assessment of her skills as a politician. The fact is, until Hillary became a senator, none of us knew how she would perform as a politician. Now, as she serves for New York state, we get our first glimpse.

I'm no Hillary supporter. She has good points, and bad points just like any politician. But I do think she gets a undeservedly bad rap. People loathe her for no good reason. She rubs people the wrong way and was connected to one of the most contentious presidents ever to have served and therefore people hate her.

I can list reasons I don't like Bush. All of those reasons lie in policy decisions and rational arguments. And, just like most of America, I can't list many facts about Hillary and her political record. How can I go and say I hate someone I don't know anything about?

Taft

zimv20

Dec 1, 2003, 02:29 PM

if the argument that "the right hates hilary because of bill" argument were true, then why does it not follow that "the left hates laura because of george"?

Taft

Dec 1, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
if the argument that "the right hates hilary because of bill" argument were true, then why does it not follow that "the left hates laura because of george"?

Whadduya mean?!?!?

I hate that ****** witch! :rolleyes:

Honestly? I'd guess that people view her more as a homemaker/childbearer. Hillary clearly had professional and political ambitions and I think that rubbed people the wrong way.

Taft

zimv20

Dec 1, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Taft

I'd guess that people view her more as a homemaker/childbearer. Hillary clearly had professional and political ambitions and I think that rubbed people the wrong way.

exactly.

i'd be willing to guess that a good chunk of the people who have so much venom for her also believe the woman's place is in the home.

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 03:42 PM

Taft,
You are special. You make your judgements based on policy. A lot of people don't. You probably use a Mac as well. A lot of people don't. That includes a lot of people who hate Hillary, and a lot of people who hate Bush. Just because you don't hate someone you don't know doesn't mean that others can't do that.

Hillary Clinton has never been president, but you wouldn't know it from the attitudes about her on both the right and the left. Hillary Clinton was associated with policy in the Clinton administration more than other First Ladies. The healthcare fiasco set the tone for that. There was a perception that she was more involved in policy--not just baking cookies, and she marketed herself as such for a time during the campaign--kind of like two for the price of one--more than other first ladies have. It's just the perception. How much actual decision making power she had on policy isn't something that we can really tell right now.

The reaction to Hillary is in part because of those political ambitions, which you say are obvious. Some people were also pissed at her over her expert trading in cattle futures, White House travel office firings, hidden billing records, illegally obtained FBI files, and crap like that. She didn't deserve all of that to stick, only some of it. The whole atmosphere apparently drove poor Vince Foster to kill himself.

People loathe Bush for no good reason, too. You may dislike his policies, I may dislike his policies, but there are plenty who loathe him not for his policies but for who they think he is. He just gets under their skin, just like Hillary does! Dress up the policy is a different political figure and rhetoric and you won't get the same reaction. Read that Time article. Half of the people think Bush is strong, half say he's arrogant, and it splits on party lines. Those aren't policy adjectives, that's personal liking and loathing.

Again, just because you don't hate someone you don't know anything about doesn't stop others, both on the right and the left, from doing just that.

Frohickey

Dec 1, 2003, 04:19 PM

I'd wish that HRC would run for President in 2004. :p :neener:

Condi Rice would make an excellent President or VP choice. Bush/Rice in 2004 would make an excellent party ticket.

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
IJReilly,
Why the sarcasm?
Hillary Clinton has been a major actor on the national political stage for quite some time, well before she was a figure in New York politics. She isn't a local New York politician. Like RFK, she's a national figure holding a state office. Were she to run for president, she would, according to polls, secure the nomination rather easily. She's more than the Senator from New York, both to the left and to the right. She's a national figure.

Your claim that she's a "major actor" is irrelevant. Even if it were true, she is still just the junior senator from New York, and I'll stick by the assessment that anyone outside of NY who has strong feelings about her one way or another is spending too much time worrying about politics in places where they don't live. Kennedy wasn't a legitimate national figure until he ran for national office, and in all probability Hillary Clinton will remain the same, unless she decides to do likewise.

Sayhey

Dec 1, 2003, 05:30 PM

I believe the venom directed at Hillary is in large part because she has become the icon for the feminist movement of her generation. Not so much in the eyes of the feminist movement itself (though that is true in some cases as well), but in the eyes of those who have opposed the cultural changes that the success of the women's rights movement has brought about. If you oppose abortion rights, loathe the idea of strong women demanding equal status in the home, on the job, and in national politics; then Hillary stands for a generation of women who helped bring those changes into being. She is a threat to the kind of values the fundamentalist preachers thunder against every Sunday, and she is used by her opponents as a symbol of what is wrong with the country. I'd vote for her in a minute.

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Your claim that she's a "major actor" is irrelevant. Even if it were true, she is still just the junior senator from New York, and I'll stick by the assessment that anyone outside of NY who has strong feelings about her one way or another is spending too much time worrying about politics in places where they don't live. Kennedy wasn't a legitimate national figure until he ran for national office, and in all probability Hillary Clinton will remain the same, unless she decides to do likewise.

LOL. Examine the amount of press she gets. It is quite significant. She has major fundraising ability across the country, not just in New York. Hillary Clinton was a national figure before she ran for office in New York. She would win the nominiation hands down were she to run. That alone makes her a national figure. She is the junior senator from New York, but to say she is "just" the junior senator from New York denies the obvious and is an insult to the level of national prominence she has gained. Of course, there's also the fact that being a Senator makes one a member of the Federal government and a very powerful person by virture of the office, not a member of the State government, but one hardly need mention that to recognize that Senator Clinton is a national political figure.

Robert F. Kennedy was a legitimate national figure at almost the same instant that nutjob Oswald's bullet cut short the life of his brother.

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 06:34 PM

Neither press attention nor fundraising ability define national political importance. Say what you will, she is still a junior senator, lacking even a prominent position on a committee or in the senate leadership -- and that is how power and prominence is defined in the senate. By your definition, every senator is automatically a national figure, and clearly this is not the case. Whether Hillary Clinton could win the nomination at all, let alone "hands down" is pure speculation, and he who speculates in politics is more often wrong then right.

I misread your last post -- I thought you were referring to JFK. Robert Kennedy was a national figure by virtue of having served as Attorney General, a national office.

pseudobrit

Dec 1, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
LOL. Examine the amount of press she gets. It is quite significant. She has major fundraising ability across the country, not just in New York. Hillary Clinton was a national figure before she ran for office in New York.

That may have had something to do with her husband's national political ambitions.

You know, like how she was first lady for 8 years. That sort of things gets you a little press coverage.

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 06:49 PM

IJ Reilly:
According to polls, the nomination is hers to take if she wants it. If you think that doesn't make her a national figure on the political stage, you are welcome to your opinion. There is no other senator, indeed, no other person, with the possible exception of Al Gore, who could step in at any time and lap the current field of candiates like she could.

I said that you don't have to mention her position as a senator to see she is a national political figure. Not every senator is a national political figure, but she is. Hillary Clinton became a national political figure by virtue of the exposure she had while her husband was president. She won the Senate race in New York based on that national recognition, not based on rising up through the ranks in New York politics. She remains a national figure. From the day she decided to run for the Senate, speculation has raged on the right and the left as to her eventual desire to run for president.

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 06:59 PM

I haven't seen any of these polls, and I wouldn't pay them much heed if I did. You can't vote for somebody who isn't running, and if a pollster asks a question about a person who isn't actually running, then the respondents are being asked to answer an entirely abstract question.

Name recognition she has, but that also does not automatically make her a national figure.

G5ROCKS

Dec 1, 2003, 07:21 PM

You and Laura Bush with the protesters. Don't see them, they aren't there. Here's a link for you to not pay any heed.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

When voters are asked, she would jump right to the top of the heap if she stepped in. It isn't an abstract question, like "Do you like freedom?" it is a hypothetical, but concrete question, and the answers show Senator Clinton to be a formidable national political figure. I could ask people here if they would like to have a new G5 over their old mac if I offered to give it to them, and they would be quite capable of formulating a thoughtful response, even though such an offer is not forthcoming!

She's a star on the national stage. It is obvious. Maybe you are just arguing for the sake of argument?

zimv20

Dec 1, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Maybe you are just arguing for the sake of argument?

no he's not

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
no he's not

Who says I'm not?

Yes, it is an abstraction to ask voters whether they'd support a candidate who is not actually running. Candidates who run have to make their case to the voters, and must face the scrutiny not only of the electorate, but of the other candidates -- who tend not to go peacefully into the night just because a high name-recognition individual enters the race (in fact, they will likely go after that person with hammer and tongs). We've seen plenty of early favorites lose elections, and especially primary elections. Polls of this kind are very poor predictors of actual performance. Polls of this kind would never predict the emergence of a Howard Dean as a serious, let alone leading, candidate.

Hillary Clinton may be a bone fide star on the national political stage some day, but she has to be more then the junior senator from New York and Bill's wife. She needs a lot more political seasoning. You may not recognize it, but I do -- and I'll wager she does, too.

zimv20

Dec 1, 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Who says I'm not?

i should have done this:

<argument sketch>
no he's not!
</argument sketch>

Sayhey

Dec 1, 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Who says I'm not?

Yes, it is an abstraction to ask voters whether they'd support a candidate who is not actually running. Candidates who run have to make their case to the voters, and must face the scrutiny not only of the electorate, but of the other candidates -- who tend not to go peacefully into the night just because a high name-recognition individual enters the race (in fact, they will likely go after that person with hammer and tongs). We've seen plenty of early favorites lose elections, and especially primary elections. Polls of this kind are very poor predictors of actual performance. Polls of this kind would never predict the emergence of a Howard Dean as a serious, let alone leading, candidate.

Hillary Clinton may be a bone fide star on the national political stage some day, but she has to be more then the junior senator from New York and Bill's wife. She needs a lot more political seasoning. You may not recognize it, but I do -- and I'll wager she does, too.

IJ, I agree such polls are of little value. However, I think you don't give enough credit to the role Hillary played as a national political figure during the Clinton administration. Does she need more "political seasoning"? Sure, they all do, but an awful lot of folks with less political savvy and clout made it to the White House. The current occupant springs to mind.

Oh, and is the reference to Dante to his Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso? Or is it just because our dear State has become a not so divine comedy?

IJ Reilly

Dec 1, 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ, I agree such polls are of little value. However, I think you don't give enough credit to the role Hillary played as a national political figure during the Clinton administration. Does she need more "political seasoning"? Sure, they all do, but an awful lot of folks with less political savvy and clout made it to the White House. The current occupant springs to mind.

Oh, and is the reference to Dante to his Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso? Or is it just because our dear State has become a not so divine comedy?

The role she played during the Clinton administration was essentially lightening rod for conservative furor. In order for her to become a serious national political figure, she has to distance herself from that period. It seems to me that she has a disadvantageous personal history right out of the box. She's got quite a bit of baggage to unload before she'll be acceptable to an audience beyond New York voters and some Democratic insiders.

The "Dante" reference was added to my profile during the October from Hell. Time to think of something new, I suppose.

Sayhey

Dec 2, 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The role she played during the Clinton administration was essentially lightening rod for conservative furor. In order for her to become a serious national political figure, she has to distance herself from that period. It seems to me that she has a disadvantageous personal history right out of the box. She's got quite a bit of baggage to unload before she'll be acceptable to an audience beyond New York voters and some Democratic insiders.

The "Dante" reference was added to my profile during the October from Hell. Time to think of something new, I suppose.

IJ, she certainly was a lightening rod to the conservatives, but she was also an outspoken advocate on many important issues. One can be a serious national political figure without holding a political office. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is an example of just such an individual. It is easy to say she would not have been able to play such a prominent role without her husband being the President, which is of course true. It is also true that as First Lady she used her role in a very effective way to get out her message to many people. I guess my argument is only that I think she is indeed already a very important national figure within the Democratic party, regardless of what anyone may think of her personally.

The Dante reference has certainly been appropriate for California politics. I don't think I can make it through Arnie's term. Time for a recall? We just need a multimillionaire with a grudge to hire lots of petitioners.

IJ Reilly

Dec 2, 2003, 10:25 AM

The implicit subject of this thread is, "why is Hillary Clinton such a polarizing figure?" The ability to polarize is not a qualification for winning a national election; it's a qualification for losing one. I suspect Hillary Clinton has enough political savvy to know that while she may be the darling of some if not many in her party, she's got a long way to go before she can run a successful national election.

We can play around with the definition of "national figure" forever, but at some point we'll need to reckon with the question of whether we're confusing a person with national name recognition with a person of national stature. Yes, Hillary Clinton is a nationally-recognized figure, but I'd argue that she's mainly recognized for her role as Wife of Bill, by both her supporters and her detractors. If she can shake that image -- and this will take time, not to mention accomplishment in the Senate -- then maybe she'll meet my definition of a national figure.

Jesse Jackson has been around for decades, and run for national office several times. He is nonetheless self-limited in his effectiveness because he's shied away from running for any office he had an actual chance of winning.

G5ROCKS

Dec 2, 2003, 10:50 AM

Sayhey is right on. Hillary Clinton is a national political figure. Most people would just admit that Hillary Clinton is a national political figure and leave it at that instead of arguing just for argument's sake.

IJ Reilly

Dec 2, 2003, 10:58 AM

Well I certainly wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts...

mactastic

Dec 2, 2003, 10:59 AM

She certainly gets a lot more attention and press coverage than any other junior senator I can think of.

IJ Reilly

Dec 2, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
She certainly gets a lot more attention and press coverage than any other junior senator I can think of.

True, and Arnold Schwartzenegger gets more press coverage and attention then any governor I can think of -- but that doesn't make him a national figure. That he will have to earn through deeds, assuming he wants it.

The point I'm making here is simple, and should be non-controversial: celebrity and name recognition do not automatically translate into political stature. Hillary Clinton has plenty of the former and virtually none of the latter. If she felt she already had enough of the latter, she'd be running today, and claiming the prize some seem to think is hers for the grasping. The fact that she's not claiming this prize suggests that she knows what some are having a difficult time accepting: that getting one's puss on the tube more often then most political novices can't be exchanged for success.

SPG

Dec 2, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
IJ Reilly:
According to polls, the nomination is hers to take if she wants it. ... There is no other senator, indeed, no other person, with the possible exception of Al Gore, who could step in at any time and lap the current field of candiates like she could.

Name recognition. Most people don't know who Kerry, Gephardt, Mosely Braun, Kucinich, or even who Clark or Dean are. They've never heard of them let alone what they stand for so it's hard for them to say they'd support them. Who's got the most name recognition? Lieberman, and he polls well in the states that haven't had any primary campaigns. Once the other candidates get their message out in those states his numbers drop like a rock from #1 to #5 every time. I suspect Hillary Clinton would do similarly, if not fall quite so far.
Besides, this particular point is moot, as it is too late to get onto any of the primary ballots, she said she's not running, and she has no campaign organization whatsoever. This "Hillary is going to run in 2004!" is a ruse to get the fervent right wingers up in arms and to support bush even more. Like I said when I started this thread, all you have to do is say "Hillary Clinton!" and they freak out.

manitoubalck

Dec 2, 2003, 05:07 PM

Ok this from a non US citizen.
1: Your health care system SUCKS hardecore, and needs reforming
2: Consevatives (Far right wing) need to move on from the 1950's
3: The US Democrat party is NOT left wing, but just right of centre
4: Comunists aren't evil
5: HRC would make a great president, because she doesn't have ball's, hence doesn't have to think with them.
6: The Australian and Brittish Labour parties are mild left wing parties,
7: George Bush had not left the United States prior to becoming President
8: Hence knows about as much as my 5 year old cousin about other cultures and their way of life, probably less.
9: He has seen the rise of Terrosim and two major US started wars.
10: HRC would be the best thing that ever happend to you guys over their.
11: I live in a country where people trash talk the person they voted for before, during and after an election, a ****ry where everyone over 18 decides on who leads the country, and a country where I still get great free health care.

If you ever consider leaving the US move to Canada, if that's a little cold, come down under, or go next door to New Zealand.

As for why Republicans dislike of HRC here is a quote from the Simpsons.
Side Show Bob: "Your guilty conscious forces you to vote democrat, but deep down you long for Republicans to lower taxes, brutalise crimanals and rule you like a King. You need me Springfield, to to protect you form yourselves. Excuse me I have a city to run."

zimv20

Dec 2, 2003, 06:12 PM

edit: must improve my reading comprehension...

Sayhey

Dec 2, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
True, and Arnold Schwartzenegger gets more press coverage and attention then any governor I can think of -- but that doesn't make him a national figure. That he will have to earn through deeds, assuming he wants it.

The point I'm making here is simple, and should be non-controversial: celebrity and name recognition do not automatically translate into political stature. Hillary Clinton has plenty of the former and virtually none of the latter. If she felt she already had enough of the latter, she'd be running today, and claiming the prize some seem to think is hers for the grasping. The fact that she's not claiming this prize suggests that she knows what some are having a difficult time accepting: that getting one's puss on the tube more often then most political novices can't be exchanged for success.

All true IJ, except for the "virtually none of the latter" part. Far to harsh of an assessment, IMO. She's no political novice, even if this is her first elective office.

zimv20

Dec 2, 2003, 07:39 PM

edit: must work on recognizing differences between Edit and Quote buttons...

G5ROCKS

Dec 2, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
Ok this from a non US citizen.
1: Your health care system SUCKS hardecore, and needs reforming
2: Consevatives (Far right wing) need to move on from the 1950's
3: The US Democrat party is NOT left wing, but just right of centre
4: Comunists aren't evil
5: HRC would make a great president, because she doesn't have ball's, hence doesn't have to think with them.
6: The Australian and Brittish Labour parties are mild left wing parties,
7: George Bush had not left the United States prior to becoming President
8: Hence knows about as much as my 5 year old cousin about other cultures and their way of life, probably less.
9: He has seen the rise of Terrosim and two major US started wars.
10: HRC would be the best thing that ever happend to you guys over their.
11: I live in a country where people trash talk the person they voted for before, during and after an election, a ****ry where everyone over 18 decides on who leads the country, and a country where I still get great free health care.

If you ever consider leaving the US move to Canada, if that's a little cold, come down under, or go next door to New Zealand.

As for why Republicans dislike of HRC here is a quote from the Simpsons.
Side Show Bob: "Your guilty conscious forces you to vote democrat, but deep down you long for Republicans to lower taxes, brutalise crimanals and rule you like a King. You need me Springfield, to to protect you form yourselves. Excuse me I have a city to run."

Do you get all of your political knowledge of the United States from the Simpsons? ;) I esp. liked that episode where they visited Australia.

Several points you might want to know in case you haven't experienced it first hand. Our healthcare system is pretty good for the most part, but we do have problems with things like high drug costs (which subsidize research and advertising and cheaper drugs in places like Canada) and high insurance premiums which leave some without insurance coverage, in spite of medicaid (healthcare for the poor) and medicare (healthcare for the elderly). We do have some of the most advanced and innovative medical techniques and research in the United States, so it is something of a mixed bag, and certainly doesn't SUCK hardcore as far as I can tell.

No one who holds elected office today advocates the kind of policies from the 1950s that were so odious (racial segregation). I agree the most Democrats in the US are not particularly leftist on a global scale, but there are a few who are in the ball park.

20 million dead Russians and many million dead Chinese, and a couple million or so dead Cambodians may tend to disagree as to whether communism is "evil." Some of my Russian friends who lived under it also said it was evil. I think I can trust them on that.(Yeah, I know, it's never been tried properly!)

Bush had left the United States prior to becoming president, not that this really matters much. He didn't start the war with Afghanistan, at least not if you consider that he only launched an attack there after 9/11.

With the passage of the new medicare drug insurance program, George Bush has done more to promote socialized medicine in the United States than Bill Clinton ever did.

I live in a country where I don't get fined if I don't vote, no matter where I live, and I don't have to rank order my preferences of candidates. Australian politics has its own quirks!

SPG

Dec 2, 2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Our healthcare system is pretty good for the most part,
If you can afford it. Far too many can't afford it and now look at what it's doing to our businesses and economy. What's that whole supermarket strike in California about? Expensive healthcare.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
but we do have problems with things like high drug costs (which subsidize research and advertising and cheaper drugs in places like Canada)
...and subsidize ridiculous profits for Big Pharma. Who does most of the research? Universities under federal grants that literally give the results away to the pharmaceutical companies to sell back to us. Canada and the rest of the world pays a much much lower price due to the power of their single payer systems. Also who the **** wants to pay for misleading advertising just so that you can get a fancy named pill?

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
and high insurance premiums which leave some without insurance coverage, in spite of medicaid (healthcare for the poor) and medicare (healthcare for the elderly).
Which are being slashed to the bone in most states due to the federal government's cuts.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
We do have some of the most advanced and innovative medical techniques and research in the United States, so it is something of a mixed bag, and certainly doesn't SUCK hardcore as far as I can tell.
If you can afford those techniques, and don't think the rest of the world doesn't have them either. Wake up, our healthcare system does SUCK BIGTIME and we need a change to a single payer system. **** the HMO's.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
No one who holds elected office today advocates the kind of policies from the 1950s that were so odious (racial segregation).
What about the Patriot Act? What about all the poeple locked up in Guantanamo that they just admitted were totally innocent? What about waging pre-emtive war without real justification? We're way worse than the 1950's! Try the 1350's as a benchmark.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I agree the most Democrats in the US are not particularly leftist on a global scale, but there are a few who are in the ball park.
Not nearly as far from the center as any of the R's are.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
20 million dead Russians and many million dead Chinese, and a couple million or so dead Cambodians may tend to disagree as to whether communism is "evil." Some of my Russian friends who lived under it also said it was evil. ...
Amen brother. I never get why anyone buys into the comunism isn't so bad crap.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Bush had left the United States prior to becoming president, not that this really matters much.
A drinking trip or two to Tijuana doesn't give someone the real perspective to understand world values, attitudes, and perspectives. All very important if you plan on leading a world power.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
He didn't start the war with Afghanistan, at least not if you consider that he only launched an attack there after 9/11.
If he hadn't been on vacation more than any previous president and hadn't ignored the reports and plans handed to him by the Clinton administration on Bin Laden, he might not have needed to. But anything the Clinton administration had done was "evil" and had to be ignored. Why do you think they're stonewalling the 9/11 commision's investigation?
What about Iraq? What the hell is that all about? It's not about terrorists. It's not about WMD. We didn't seem to mind the killing and torture when Saddam was "our kind of guy".

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
With the passage of the new medicare drug insurance program, George Bush has done more to promote socialized medicine in the United States than Bill Clinton ever did.
That's why it won't kick in until after the election? 2006? The medicare plan helps the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. There is very little real benefit to senior citizens and the pricetag is astronomical.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I live in a country where I don't get fined if I don't vote, no matter where I live, and I don't have to rank order my preferences of candidates. Australian politics has its own quirks!
I'll give you that, but did you know that our own presidential election system doesn't even pass the test we demand of developing nations? Electoral college? Come on! Supreme Court stepping in to annoint the winner? Voter purge and hanging chads in the state run by the brother of the candidate? It sounds like the worst third world banana republic farce.

zimv20

Dec 2, 2003, 10:54 PM

regarding US healthcare...

yes, the US is great at medical innovation. the drugs and techniques are top-notch. but have we noticed how those great techniques tend to be reserved for those w/ chronic illness? or how so many new drugs are lifestyle oriented?

what i'm not seeing is a big effort to keep americans healthy. we'd rather prescribe Lipitor than get on a treamill. we'd rather prescribe Viagra than clean up our environment.

and as mentioned, all this great medicine is reserved for those who can afford it. having the great medicine doesn't equal a healthy population. how many 'americans are more obese than ever' headlines have we seen the past few years?

why do the italians live so much healthier lives w/o the same medical machine the US has?

IJ Reilly

Dec 2, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
All true IJ, except for the "virtually none of the latter" part. Far to harsh of an assessment, IMO. She's no political novice, even if this is her first elective office.

We'll just have to differ on that point. I can offer as proof of my point Hillary Clinton's staying clear of a race so many people seem to think she could easily win. If she has something to show for her term in the Senate, I'd expect her to enter in 2008, but the latter is predicated on the former, IMO.

manitoubalck

Dec 3, 2003, 12:47 AM

Thankyou SPG for your support. I would like to revise my communist statement however,

"The socialist ideals proposed in "A communist Manifesto" by Karl Marks were not evil by any means. Stalin and Mao however were evil, hence made the system evil."

But the same could be said for the US forigen policy.
I'm for state owned Utillities (Power, water, communication, healthcare, gas, some housing, defence, etc) while all else is in the hands of the free market.

G5ROCKS

Dec 3, 2003, 09:27 AM

manitoubalck,

The ideals of Karl Marx have turned out into evil everywhere they have been tried. There's a reason for this. As far as I can tell, Marx was simply dead wrong on his understanding of human nature. One might think these ideals are not be evil, but they are based in ignorance, IMO.

SPG,
Your opinions on Iraq and the other issues do not reflect a majority view in the United States. We should all try to understand that there are other valid perspectives on these issues. No one has a monopoly on the truth, including you.

BTW, presidents don't go on "vacation" as such. Even when they are away from Washington, the job follows them. Meeting, briefings, phone calls etc. etc. It's not like a factory job where you can punch in a 7 and out at 3.

Arguments about which party is further to the right or to the left are pointless. It just depends on where you put the center, which is usually heavily influenced by where you happen to fall yourself.

What about the Patriot Act? A number of its provisions were needed. Others may be altered. A judge still has to issue warrants. Hardly the 1350s.

What about the prisoners in Cuba? Totally innocent? Hardly. They were fighting in a war and we captured fighting it. They are lucky they weren't killed on the spot for not being in a formal uniform.

I don't want to sound harsh, but a single payer system has its own problems. I've followed the conditions in places like the UK, where you can wait for a very long time to get treatment (and the Blair government has been trying reforms). I've seen where Canadians cross over to the US for treatment, and Americans order drugs from Canada.

As far the the Supreme Court stepping in to anoint the winner in the last election, the winner would have been the same whether the Supreme Court did anything or not. If you don't like the electoral college, we can change the constitution, but it works fairly well. I would have some reforms, but keep the basic system intact.

zimv20,
About 85 percent of the US popluation has helath insurance. That great medicine is also available to anyone who shows up an an ER in need of help, even if they happen to be in the country illegally. I used to work in a hospital. I remember when a stabbing wound came in, no one asked whether the person had insurance or was able to pay for the advanced equipment we had there. Instead, they were taken back to the very advanced cath lab, and their life was saved. One of the reasons that certain healthcare is available in other countries is that it was first developed here and exported. (This is not to say that other countries don't produce medical advances, but the US does produce quite a lot of such advances which are picked up around the world). My guess is diet, exercise, and possibly genetics as to why Italy has a healthy population--assuming that they do.

Why are there a lot of drugs to treat conditions that are lifestyle oriented? Because, from high blood fat levels to diabetes, we have a lot of lifestyle-related diseases in the United States. There are also advances that go to the treatment of acute conditions, but they don't advertise them on television, so we don't see as much about them.

IJ Reilly,
For Senator Clinton, the nomination may be fairly easy, but the general election is quite another cup of tea. I don't think she's interested in being runner up for the White House. However, she is still a national political actor, IMO.

mactastic

Dec 3, 2003, 09:30 AM

Arguing that Communism is evil is like arguing that guns are evil. The people who used the system to oppress and exploit the masses are evil. Just like when someone says guns don't kill people, people do. Communism doesn't kill people, evil ba$tards who hijack a philosophy do. Same with Capitalism. Not evil by itself, but it can turn ugly with the right (wrong) person.

Besides, isn't a kibbutz a kind of communist setup? The old people in the group aren't forced to work for a living, the younger and more able support them with the expectation that the same will happen for them when they get old.

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 10:16 AM

A point of order: The UK health care system is not "single payer," it is socialized. The Canadian system is not socialized, it is single payer. In the former, doctors are employed by the state, and the latter is the rough equivalent of everyone in the US being covered by Medicare.

dcoltonbrown

Dec 3, 2003, 10:46 AM

1. She is a liberal....way to the left. Yet when her husband cheats in her, she turns her head and stays with him. That is a sign of a weak individual and goes against everything the femi-nazi's proclaim.

2. She is a liberal...way to the left. Yet she will do anything (and probably anyone) to get to the top.

3. She is a crook. Remember whitewater? Destroying evidencte, travelgate...

4. I just don't like her. Her voice, her looks. her attitude, etc.

wwworry

Dec 3, 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by dcoltonbrown
1. She is a liberal....way to the left. Yet when her husband cheats in her, she turns her head and stays with him. That is a sign of a weak individual and goes against everything the femi-nazi's proclaim.

2. She is a liberal...way to the left. Yet she will do anything (and probably anyone) to get to the top.

3. She is a crook. Remember whitewater? Destroying evidencte, travelgate...

4. I just don't like her. Her voice, her looks. her attitude, etc.

1. she's a centrist. ask any liberal.

2 & 3. Yeah I remember they spent $70 million and they could not find anything except a tryst with an intern. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs (Enron - see below) in history. GW Bush however is the only president elected with a criminal record (drunk driving) and went AWOL and used connections to get out of it. And I do not recall her stealing any elections, like GWB. And she has not broken the record of time spent fundraising that GWBush set.

4. You don't like her because you don't like her. Smart!

Here is a sample of the Bush Resume:
(real reason's to dislike an officeholder)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of overone billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost theirjobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.

My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.

After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 11:24 AM

wwworry

Dec 3, 2003, 11:42 AM

"femi-nazi"..

Wasn't that popularized by that hypocritical drug addict talk show host who sent his maid out to buy drugs for him? Do people still listen to him? Why isn't he in jail?

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
"femi-nazi"..

Wasn't that popularized by that hypocritical drug addict talk show host who sent his maid out to buy drugs for him? Do people still listen to him? Why isn't he in jail?

It is an offensive term first used by the hypocrite Rush Limbaugh in order to ridicule the radical notion of feminism that the equality of men and women is a good thing. Can't have those "uppity" women disrupting the social order, now can we?

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 11:55 AM

mactastic

Dec 3, 2003, 11:57 AM

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Rush may not be perfect, but he's forgiven.

Shall we take a vote on that among the petty first time drug offenders forced to spend time in prison because of the politics endorsed and promoted by Rush?

IJ Reilly

Dec 3, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
Shall we take a vote on that among the petty first time drug offenders forced to spend time in prison because of the politics endorsed and promoted by Rush?

And all of the other right-wingers who believe that prison cures drug addiction. Nah, I don't need that -- I can fully appreciate the hypocrisy from here.

howard

Dec 3, 2003, 12:31 PM

listen to this true story:

i was at work over the summer, and i work with older conservative working class americans, it was just after hillary's book came out. Whenever these people would see hillaries name in the paper they would just bash her to pieces...quite violently in fact. I didn't understand so i asked them why. They said cause of her stupid new book. Then i asked, have you read it?...no... then i asked, well why do you hate her cause of the book? whats wrong with her?... they looked at me kinda confused and said... well i heard on the radio that she wrote a lot of stupid things in there.

there you have it folks.

my forehead is still red from hitting it so hard with my hand

SPG

Dec 3, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
SPG, Your opinions on Iraq and the other issues do not reflect a majority view in the United States. We should all try to understand that there are other valid perspectives on these issues. No one has a monopoly on the truth, including you.
Perhaps my opinions are not shared by the majority, but for a while after the Iraq war the majority believed a lot of things that weren't true, such as WMD's had been found in Iraq and been used against US forces. Outside of the US, the overwhelming majority does not support or condone this war.
I claim no monopoly on truth, but I do try to get as much information as possible before arriving at my conclusions.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
BTW, presidents don't go on "vacation" as such. Even when they are away from Washington, the job follows them. Meeting, briefings, phone calls etc. etc. It's not like a factory job where you can punch in a 7 and out at 3.
Oh yeah, whole lot of business getting done while clearing brush and fundraising. Check the stats and especially the stories pre 9/11 about how little leading was actually being done.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Arguments about which party is further to the right or to the left are pointless. It just depends on where you put the center, which is usually heavily influenced by where you happen to fall yourself.
Good point, but then what do we compare to? Stalinist Russia as a center point? Liberia? The Netherlands? What country do we most start to seem like when we roll back our civil liberties and live in fear of Big Brother? What do we look like when we starve our poor? What do we look like when we forgo the needs of our citizens to build a massive military machine and wage unilateral wars halfway around the globe? I think that W's version of the center is more in line with Soviet Russia of the 1950's.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
[i]What about the Patriot Act? A number of its provisions were needed. Others may be altered. A judge still has to issue warrants. Hardly the 1350s.
A secret judge who has not turned down a single request ever.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
[i]What about the prisoners in Cuba? Totally innocent? Hardly. They were fighting in a war and we captured fighting it. They are lucky they weren't killed on the spot for not being in a formal uniform.
Then why is the US govt releasing 140 of them? How do we even know what they are charged with or who they are if there is no information released or charges made? I don't doubt that many of these people locked up are in fact Taliban fighters, but how many aren't? How many are just soldiers and how many are hardened terrorists? Our country was not founded on the belief that we should persecute everyone to get the few guilty. This trashes any bit of credibility left that we are fighting for freedom, democracy, and justice.
We have very adequate means for trying suspects that don't violate all manner of international law and our own constitution.
A lot of the prisoners were not captured by the US. They were turned over by Northern Alliance warlords for rewards, often after kidnapping bystanders to increase the number and hence increase the reward.

Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese assistant cameraman with the al-Jazeera TV station, was picked out and held while leaving Afghanistan for Pakistan after the fall of Kabul with the rest of his crew. They never saw him again.
...
Airat Vakhitov, one of eight Russians on Guantanamo, thought he had been liberated when a reporter from Le Monde discovered him in a Taliban jail, where he had sat in darkness and been beaten for seven months on suspicion of spying for the KGB. But he only exchanged the Taliban prison for an American one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098604,00.html
Read the whole story, it's not just about the ones who are thought to be innocent.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I don't want to sound harsh, but a single payer system has its own problems. I've followed the conditions in places like the UK, where you can wait for a very long time to get treatment (and the Blair government has been trying reforms). I've seen where Canadians cross over to the US for treatment, and Americans order drugs from Canada.
Find a single Canadian who would trade health plans with us. The stories of Canadians and Britons who wait for care are few and far between compared with the MILLIONS of americans who will have to wait until Hell itself freezes over to get care.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
As far the the Supreme Court stepping in to anoint the winner in the last election, the winner would have been the same whether the Supreme Court did anything or not.
It was a sham and you know it. This will be remembered as a very dark time in american politics.

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
... That great medicine is also available to anyone who shows up an an ER in need of help, even if they happen to be in the country illegally. ... no one asked whether the person had insurance or was able to pay for the advanced equipment we had there.
The people are asked after they receive the care to pay for it. A friend of mine who lost his health care last year hit his head and spent a couple days in ICU after an emergency procedure to drill a big hole in the back of his head to relieve the swelling. He survived and has mostly recovered. His savings were wiped out and the remaining $70,000 was picked up by Medicaide which is paid for by the taxpayer. (BTW if his accident happened a month later he wouldn't have qualified because of the budget cuts.) He has had no follow up visits.
Sounds like a great system to me.

G5ROCKS

Dec 3, 2003, 04:34 PM

SPG,
If you get a lot of information before making a decision, can you outline the case for the other side of various issues from the perspective of someone on that side? If we don't understand a position from the perspective of its advocates, it hard for us to really claim we are somehow better able to reach conclusions that the other side.

BTW, We aren't starving our poor. We're killing them because they eat too much and get fat. C'mon get with the program!

I think you are in LA LA land saying that Bush's idea of the center is the Soviet Union under Stalin, but you're entitled to believe that. It rather sounds like some of those Hillary Clinton haters who think she's going to turn over the country to a UN army.

It seems like they are questioning the prisoners and releasing those they can release as they are deemed not to be a threat. It's a complicated legal and security situation, but it's not the kind of human rights atrocity that some would like to think it is.

There are a number of Canadians who come to the United States for medical care. They speak for themselves. I've seen catastrophic health coverage for as little as 40 dollars a month. I'm sorry for your friend's injury, but I think your friend could have had this if he wanted it. I bet you would have helped him pay for it!

Ugg

Dec 3, 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
[BIt seems like they are questioning the prisoners and releasing those they can release as they are deemed not to be a threat. It's a complicated legal and security situation, but it's not the kind of human rights atrocity that some would like to think it is.
[/B]

What a bunch of bs. Why does it take 2 years to "question" them? Sure, hide behind gw's decision to obfuscate the legality and the morality of it all. IMO it is pretty clear cut. Many of the men and BOYS that are in custody shouldn't be there. It's politics pure and simple and has nothing to do with security.

G5ROCKS

Dec 3, 2003, 04:53 PM

How many of them shouldn't be detained, and which ones? How many should be locked up forever? I can't answer that question, and neither can you. It may be clear cut to you, but you don't have to decide what to do with these prisoners, and, unless you have some kind of really good security clearance, you may not know enough to have such clear cut certainty.

If it is pure and simple politics, where's the political benefit for Bush? There isn't any compared with the political cost.

zimv20

Dec 3, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
How many of them shouldn't be detained, and which ones? How many should be locked up forever? I can't answer that question, and neither can you.

nor can the administration, who decided to bypass the courts. and i've given away my answer: it should be for the courts to decide. now why wasn't it?

Sayhey

Dec 3, 2003, 06:50 PM

I've got a radical idea. Why don't we treat the prisoners in Cuba as prisoners of war? And with all the rights that go with that status? It means that those you can convict of war crimes you do so with the same established procedures that have been observed for decades and those who are not guilty of crimes you repatriate to their country of origin. I know, it's difficult to think of the Bush administration standing up for international law, but it could happen -- couldn't it?

jefhatfield

Dec 3, 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by jonapete2001
From my point of view it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I find that woman can be excelant politicians. If some people here think everything Bush does is a cold calculated move just take a look at Mrs. Clinton.

My hatred of her has nothing to do with her sex. My number one canidate for President in 08 is Condelisa Rice. There is a strong conservative woman who I would gladly vote for. Oh and she is black, I dont know how many times I have been wrongly labeled a racist on this board but I dont think a racist would openly advocate for a black female president.

rice is a very viable candidate in 2008 and if she succeeds, not one term but two, she will bring out all the women haters that reside on the democratic side of the forest

i think two term presidents really get the extreme criticism of the other party since that president had twice as much time to piss them off

that is why there are so many reagan and clinton detractors out there

but as to why hilary is unpopular? who knows why and she isn't running in 04 so she isn't a direct threat to the white house

manitoubalck

Dec 4, 2003, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by dcoltonbrown
2. She is a liberal...way to the left. Yet she will do anything (and probably anyone) to get to the top.
I take it you've never left The US and you fell that the deomocrats are a left wing party. As I have said before US Democrats are a modorate Right wing party, while the Republicans are a hardline/far Right wing party. The brittish, Irish and Australin Labour parties are mild Left wing (Unionist.) While the Former USSR was hardline Left wing.

Even so to Call HRC 'way too left' wing is an insult to your credibility.

manitoubalck

Dec 4, 2003, 03:33 AM

wwworry
Quite a Rant, and I tend to agree with most of it.

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
I take it you've never left The US and you fell that the deomocrats are a left wing party. As I have said before US Democrats are a modorate Right wing party, while the Republicans are a hardline/far Right wing party. The brittish, Irish and Australin Labour parties are mild Left wing (Unionist.) While the Former USSR was hardline Left wing.

Even so to Call HRC 'way too left' wing is an insult to your credibility.

Once again, arguning about which party or person is more to the left or to the right just depends on where you happen to see the center. It doesn't insult anyone's credibility one way or another. I've heard libertarians describe the two American parties as "socialist" Democrats and "socialist lite" (Republicans). It doesn't insult their credibility to do so, it just shows them as being libertarians. They would call you a fool for saying that Democrats were a moderate right wing party, but that's only because they have a different view of the center.

sayhey,
We don't treat them as POWs among other reasons because POWs have the right to communitcate with people back home and it may not be the brightest of ideas to allow some of the same people who planned 9/11 to send out letters to their colleagues to help with the next such attack. It is easy to criticize and rant in righteous indignation, but the issue is a lot more complicated than some would like to think. Besides, if they are treated as traditional POWs in the war on terror, they'd be held until the end of hostilities between the two parties, and there isn't a clearly defined end point to that. Even the Taliban hasn't reached a negotiated settlement, so their fighters could be detained until that point is reached. Again, it's easy to rant and rave against the government for taking these decisions, but it is a good bit more difficult to craft anything substantially different that addresses adequately the responsibilities of that government.

zimv20,
Courts deal with things like rules of evidence. Wars do not. When you have something that is a hybrid between a criminal investigation and the prosecution of a war, where showing information like how you got certain evidence in open court can end up getting thousands of people killed, it is reasonable that there will be a different approach to the problem. The way these prisoners are being handled is a compromise. We might not like it, but it isn't unreasonable, and a compromise of some kind is appropriate, IMO.

No one has pointed to a real political benefit for the administration in doing this. There is, however, a significant political downside in creating friction with allies, etc. etc. There is also potential upside in terms of security and having a greater ability to track down other terrorists and stop future terrorist attacks.

Ugg

Dec 4, 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
We don't treat them as POWs among other reasons because POWs have the right to communitcate with people back home and it may not be the brightest of ideas to allow some of the same people who planned 9/11 to send out letters to their colleagues to help with the next such attack. It is easy to criticize and rant in righteous indignation, but the issue is a lot more complicated than some would like to think. Besides, if they are treated as traditional POWs in the war on terror, they'd be held until the end of hostilities between the two parties, and there isn't a clearly defined end point to that. Even the Taliban hasn't reached a negotiated settlement, so their fighters could be detained until that point is reached. Again, it's easy to rant and rave against the government for taking these decisions, but it is a good bit more difficult to craft anything substantially different that addresses adequately the responsibilities of that government.

How do we know that these detainees planned the attacks? We don't do we, we know absolutely nothing about them other than that a majority were "bought" from the Northern Alliance.

First you deny that we should act in a traditional manner due to the supposed new threat they pose and then you say that the old rules don't matter anyway because the deposed Taliban has not made peace with us and so we can't use them. Which is it? Or, is it perfectly acceptable for gw & co. to make up the rules as they go?

Your patronizing and illogical argument does little to address the problem. Your assumptions that the govt. is acting in the nation's best interest belies the actions of this regime. You would do well to do a little research and use your own noggin rather than spout the party line.

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Ugg
How do we know that these detainees planned the attacks? We don't do we, we know absolutely nothing about them other than that a majority were "bought" from the Northern Alliance.

First you deny that we should act in a traditional manner due to the supposed new threat they pose and then you say that the old rules don't matter anyway because the deposed Taliban has not made peace with us and so we can't use them. Which is it? Or, is it perfectly acceptable for gw & co. to make up the rules as they go?

Your patronizing and illogical argument does little to address the problem. Your assumptions that the govt. is acting in the nation's best interest belies the actions of this regime. You would do well to do a little research and use your own noggin rather than spout the party line.

Some of these detainess have admitted as much. Al qeada also had terror training camps in Afghanistan. That is one way we know.

I point to the difficulties in the process to show that it isn't a simple as one would hope, but you are arguing in black and white. "Which is it?" you say, POW or not, but what you've missed that I am saying it is neither and both.

My observations are not patronizing, and they are not illogical. Why the hostility and personal attack in calling someone patronizing, illogical, and ignorant? Can't we discuss issues in a respectful manner instead of saying that the other person hasn't done any research or given the topic any thought? Not everyone is going to agree on every point, but what is the purpose of attacks on the person?

My assumptions are not that this administration is acting in the best interest of the country. My conclusion based on the situation is that any administration would be faced with an incredible tangle of legal and security issues in the aftermath of 9/11, and working those out is not a clear cut and easy exercise. For that opinon, I am called patronizing, illogical, and ignorant; one who spouts the party line. Again, why such hostility to views that are a little more open to the complexities of the situation?

mactastic

Dec 4, 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
The way these prisoners are being handled is a compromise. We might not like it, but it isn't unreasonable, and a compromise of some kind is appropriate, IMO.

There was a compromise made? I know one side wanted POW rules to be followed. What did the other side have as it's starting point? Interrogation under torture followed by summary execution? And a compromise was struck by offering to simply hold them incommunicado indefinetly? Even if we said we wern't going to release them until the 'War on Terror' is over, at least that gives them some hope of release. And the government release of some of these prisoners is a tacit admission that they were locked up for two years with no justification.

On a related note, the government has not been doing too well against these guys in court. The government has admitted it has exculpatory evidence that he was not considered stable enough by al Qaeda to be involved with 9/11, but they refuse to allow him access to the detainees that would exonerate him. Yasser Hamdi, the US citizen held in a naval brig with no access to a lawyer for over a year, has finally been granted access to one. The government has said not to read too much in to that decision, but many legal scholars are reading a lot into it. Such as the government realized it would be forced to provide him access sooner or later.

Sooner or later the Supremes are going to have to step in and rule one way or another what the limits of the governments powers are with respect to 'enemy combatants'.

Ugg

Dec 4, 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Some of these detainess have admitted as much. Al qeada also had terror training camps in Afghanistan. That is one way we know.

Where did you get your information from? THe pentagon and wh have kept such a close watch on them and not allowed any independent verification of any information so how can you say that they have admitted as much. Your claim that just because al Qaeda had training camps in Afghanistan means that some of these detainees are guilty by means of geography.

In other words, we have absolutely no idea who these men and boys are nor do we have any verifiable proof that they were connected to the attacks. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that they are guilty because they are in being held in Guantanamo Bay. SOme of them may well be guilty but until they are allowed unfettered legal representation they are innocent in my mind. Any other approach is simply one of the most blatant humans rights abuses since Rwanda and Kosovo.

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Ugg
Where did you get your information from? THe pentagon and wh have kept such a close watch on them and not allowed any independent verification of any information so how can you say that they have admitted as much. Your claim that just because al Qaeda had training camps in Afghanistan means that some of these detainees are guilty by means of geography.

In other words, we have absolutely no idea who these men and boys are nor do we have any verifiable proof that they were connected to the attacks. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that they are guilty because they are in being held in Guantanamo Bay. SOme of them may well be guilty but until they are allowed unfettered legal representation they are innocent in my mind. Any other approach is simply one of the most blatant humans rights abuses since Rwanda and Kosovo.

Well, the government is refusing to allow Mr. Moussai to question the guy who planned the 9/11 attack because they say it would jeopardize national security. The defendant thinks he can prove his innocence by testimony from those planners who are now in custody. The defendant is probably also schizophrenic. A judge has said to the government that , well, you can't have that, and they are going back and forth in court over it. That's just a clue that we aren't dealing with a collection of people who guilty of only geography. Like I said before, there are complex issues invovled for which we do not have established rules, either in the US or internationally. What we have is a hybrid between criminal investigations and a traditional war. It just doesn't give itself to simplisitc answers.

If we give all of the detainess the rights to legal representation and rights that you desire, then, they get to have private consultations with their lawyers, speak or write to the press, and what not--who can be pretty much anyone, and who can relay information from the ones who happen to be terrorists to their collegaues. Even the knowledge that a particular person is in custody can be a risk. Print a list and the terrorists are able to say, "Look, they got Manjib, he knows about the cell in Dresden, better move them somewhere else." And when Manjib finally decides to cooperate and says, "There's a cell in Dresden," they have already pushed off for safer environs. It just isn't as simple as we would like it to be.

You compare the 600 or so detainees in Guantanamo, picked up on a battlefield, to hunderds of thousands of dead Africans, slaughtered in their home, fields, and churches, as the world looked on and debated the semantics of the word genocide? You're just kidding, right?

jefhatfield

Dec 4, 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

zimv20,
About 85 percent of the US popluation has helath insurance. That great medicine is also available to anyone who shows up an an ER in need of help, even if they happen to be in the country illegally. I used to work in a hospital. I remember when a stabbing wound came in, no one asked whether the person had insurance or was able to pay for the advanced equipment we had there. Instead, they were taken back to the very advanced cath lab, and their life was saved. One of the reasons that certain healthcare is available in other countries is that it was first developed here and exported. (This is not to say that other countries don't produce medical advances, but the US does produce quite a lot of such advances which are picked up around the world). My guess is diet, exercise, and possibly genetics as to why Italy has a healthy population--assuming that they do.

having worked in a hospital myself, i have seen the industry dragged down by the insurance issue...fifteen percent unisured is unacceptable and the number increases, especially among middle class americans, white males who are over 30 and single, and other demographics not traditionally categorized as poor

the ultra conservatives think that things are going really well with medicine and that there is no insurance issue while the liberals think that the drug companies and insurance companies are rich...the case is neither is close to the truth

california, where i live, has an influx of illegal immigrants so large it is impossible to measure and my blue cross agent has told me that my rates going from 253 to 1200 a quarter have more to do with that than my age over the years

california is in a situation where the illegal immigrant situation is not likely to change since one side of the political aisle is tied closely with mexico (who is also our biggest trading partner) and the other side of the political aisle needs the cheap labor and the hosptality and agricultural industries will see to that

we have a system that has worked for the past, but we live in a different ball game now where the cost of medical care far outpaces inflation and in states like california texas, arizona, etc, there is also the illegal immigrant issue to face...and sadly, the true issues of illegal immigration has been made a topic off limits for further discussion since it brings up heated debates and lengthy lawsuits and campaigns

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 12:00 PM

jef, Maybe a thrid way is in order. What about a system where you pay out of pocket for routine medical expenses, but are covered in catastrophic situations by insurance? 250 dollars a month for group medical coverage for a healthy non smoker who doesn't drink much seems to be outrageous to me.

jefhatfield

Dec 4, 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
jef, Maybe a thrid way is in order. What about a system where you pay out of pocket for routine medical expenses, but are covered in catastrophic situations by insurance? 250 dollars a month for group medical coverage for a healthy non smoker who doesn't drink much seems to be outrageous to me.

i like that idea very much

...but my fellow democrats will fight against it...hehe...that's why i call myself a blue dog democrat (unlike the fiscally liberal northeastern democrats or the socially conservative dixiecrats

i hope you get individual benefits within that 250 a month you pay? because if it's solely group and you have something that happens to you not in the high percentile range of accidents or illnesses, then you are not covered

every day, some plan raises their premium, and every day some insurance plan covers one less mishap in their contract and the trend is disturbing and the fault lies equally in both parties

i try and convice fellow democrats, who may be more liberal than me fiscally, that the drug companies are not rich and the insurance companies are not rich, but the info falls on deaf ears and all the links and proof in the world will still get criticism and be disregarded

pdham

Dec 4, 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS security issues in the aftermath of 9/11, [/B]

How long will be able to use the aftermath of 9/11 as an excuse for normally inexcusable actions?

Ugg,
While I agree with everything you are saying about the detainees, I would also like to ask for a little perspective about the Rwandan issue. Estimates are as high as 800,000 Rwandans slaughtered in 100 days. This does not even come close to the issue in Guantanamo Bay, and saying that it does just demonstrates the mind frame of the rest of the world as they sat back and watched possibly the worst example of human monstrosity in the last 50 years.

zimv20

Dec 4, 2003, 12:33 PM

IJ Reilly

Dec 4, 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
250 dollars a month for group medical coverage for a healthy non smoker who doesn't drink much seems to be outrageous to me.

Outrageous is may be, but it's also the bear minimum price these days for a crummy HMO with steadily rising copays.

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 01:54 PM

The $250 was group insurance. I get the same coverage as an individual from the SAME COMPANY for $140 a month. Nuts, isn't it?

pdham,
That's a good question about 9/11. The answer is that it is hard to know when, but it is clear that we need some modification of the rules we have operated under in the past. Military tribunals as a compromise between civil courts and no courts for people who don't quite fit the definition of common criminal and don't fit the definition of soldier? Relaxed rules of evidence in a civil court and no tribunals? Intelligence services don't get warrants to tap phones in foreign countries etc., and that evidence would not be allowed in a ordinary civil court. Do we simply release everyone who has been captured because some evidence against them came out in questioning (in a war zone in some cases) without a lawyer or on a wiretap without a warrant? Do we give every detainee access to a sat. phone to call home and speak privately with whomever they wish, or do we not provide any information on their identities at all? These are not easy questions, and the boilerplate responses to these issues on all sides is not helpful, IMO.

Ugg

Dec 4, 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
You compare the 600 or so detainees in Guantanamo, picked up on a battlefield, to hunderds of thousands of dead Africans, slaughtered in their home, fields, and churches, as the world looked on and debated the semantics of the word genocide? You're just kidding, right?

No, what I'm saying is that since Rwanda and Kosovo, this is one of the most offensive human rights abuses.

What is most offensive to me is the fact that the most "free" and "democratic" country in the world is responsible for it. It is tragic that the world stood by and watched Rwandans kill one another. World apathy was fortunately not repeated to the same degree in Kosovo, but the sheer disregard for the most basic of American rights, freedom of speech, when it comes to the detainees makes me sick.

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Ugg
No, what I'm saying is that since Rwanda and Kosovo, this is one of the most offensive human rights abuses.

What is most offensive to me is the fact that the most "free" and "democratic" country in the world is responsible for it. It is tragic that the world stood by and watched Rwandans kill one another. World apathy was fortunately not repeated to the same degree in Kosovo, but the sheer disregard for the most basic of American rights, freedom of speech, when it comes to the detainees makes me sick.

Sorry, I thouht that you were somehow saying they were similar by mentioning them in the same sentence like that. You really think that the human rights "abuse" in Guantanamo is worse than what's been going on in Kosovo, China, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia etc. I think pdham's admonition for perspective still applies. I have personal friends who have seen what has been going on in Sudan. Locking someone up, even a totally innocent person, doesn't even come close to the horror.

Sayhey

Dec 4, 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
sayhey,
We don't treat them as POWs among other reasons because POWs have the right to communitcate with people back home and it may not be the brightest of ideas to allow some of the same people who planned 9/11 to send out letters to their colleagues to help with the next such attack. It is easy to criticize and rant in righteous indignation, but the issue is a lot more complicated than some would like to think. Besides, if they are treated as traditional POWs in the war on terror, they'd be held until the end of hostilities between the two parties, and there isn't a clearly defined end point to that. Even the Taliban hasn't reached a negotiated settlement, so their fighters could be detained until that point is reached. Again, it's easy to rant and rave against the government for taking these decisions, but it is a good bit more difficult to craft anything substantially different that addresses adequately the responsibilities of that government.

I understand the argument that the Bush administration has been making around this and you repeat it much in the same manner as they have made it. It is, in my opinion, a huge overreaction in some of these guys cases. If their are al qaeda operatives then they should be charged and tried as members of a conspiracy that has carried out horrendous acts. If they are Taleban foot soldiers who got caught up in the war and did not commit any particular crime they should be released. All we accomplish with this subversion of the basic rights we have upheld over all of these years with our treatment of these prisoners is the alienation of the rest of the world.

I guess I should be thankful for small bits of progress, as I see the Bush administration has finally agreed to let Hamdi (an American citizen) talk to a lawyer after something like 18 months of being held incommunicado. Last I heard, it was still part of the Oath of Office for the President to protect and defend the Constitution. Perhaps that shouldn't get lost in the all the fear and paranoia that too often is being spread.

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
I understand the argument that the Bush administration has been making around this and you repeat it much in the same manner as they have made it. It is, in my opinion, a huge overreaction in some of these guys cases. If their are al qaeda operatives then they should be charged and tried as members of a conspiracy that has carried out horrendous acts. If they are Taleban foot soldiers who got caught up in the war and did not commit any particular crime they should be released. All we accomplish with this subversion of the basic rights we have upheld over all of these years with our treatment of these prisoners is the alienation of the rest of the world.

I guess I should be thankful for small bits of progress, as I see the Bush administration has finally agreed to let Hamdi (an American citizen) talk to a lawyer after something like 18 months of being held incommunicado. Last I heard, it was still part of the Oath of Office for the President to protect and defend the Constitution. Perhaps that shouldn't get lost in the all the fear and paranoia that too often is being spread.

If they are al Qeada operatives, how can they be tried when the evidence against them would be exluded under our very stringent rules for criminal courts? As for the Taliban foot soldier, well, the war is still going on there last I heard, but I would suspect certain ones can be repatriated. Let's assume that of the 600 or so there, 400 are totally innocent and 200 are ready to carry out another 9/11-style attack at the first opportunity. Under our traditional legal way of doing things, pretty much all of these guys would have to be released because the evidence against them has what's called "poison roots." Do you want to explain to the victims the next time that you had him in custody, but let him go because he got questioned in Afghanistan and Cuba without a lawyer present? It's a bit harsh to say all we accomplish in Guantanamo is violation of rights. We also accomplish stopping some future terrorist attacks. Like I said before, these aren't easy issues. We have courts that will decide in the final analysis whether the actions in detaining these individuals has been done in accordance with the US Constitution. That's one big reason why they are at Guantanamo instead of in the US proper.

There's also a lot of fear and paranoia being spread that Ashcroft is currently leading the next Gestapo or something equally asinine. Prehaps the fact that he isn't shouldn't get lost either.

Sayhey

Dec 4, 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
If they are al Qeada operatives, how can they be tried when the evidence against them would be exluded under our very stringent rules for criminal courts? As for the Taliban foot soldier, well, the war is still going on there last I heard, but I would suspect certain ones can be repatriated. Let's assume that of the 600 or so there, 400 are totally innocent and 200 are ready to carry out another 9/11-style attack at the first opportunity. Under our traditional legal way of doing things, pretty much all of these guys would have to be released because the evidence against them has what's called "poison roots." Do you want to explain to the victims the next time that you had him in custody, but let him go because he got questioned in Afghanistan and Cuba without a lawyer present? It's a bit harsh to say all we accomplish in Guantanamo is violation of rights. We also accomplish stopping some future terrorist attacks. Like I said before, these aren't easy issues. We have courts that will decide in the final analysis whether the actions in detaining these individuals has been done in accordance with the US Constitution. That's one big reason why they are at Guantanamo instead of in the US proper.

There's also a lot of fear and paranoia being spread that Ashcroft is currently leading the next Gestapo or something equally asinine. Prehaps the fact that he isn't shouldn't get lost either.

I don't agree that war crimes cannot be successfully prosecuted in the open under the rules of evidence used in past cases. We did it with the Nazis and the Japanese Militarists after WWII and it is being done now with the criminals in Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia. I think such people should after a open trial be put away for a very, very long time (perhaps until their great- great-grandchildren are born.)

Those Taleban soldiers who are not guilty of war crimes should be turned over to there own government in Afghanistan to decide what to do with them. The same goes for others who have been caught up in the sweep and we have no evidence of any crime.

My reference to "all" we do at Guantanamo was to all we do with the denial of basic rights. I have no problem with the holding of war criminals. We should just not help folks like al Qaeda undermine our own basic liberties by resorting to methods we have condemned since the founding of the US.

G5ROCKS

Dec 4, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
I don't agree that war crimes cannot be successfully prosecuted in the open under the rules of evidence used in past cases. We did it with the Nazis and the Japanese Militarists after WWII and it is being done now with the criminals in Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia. I think such people should after a open trial be put away for a very, very long time (perhaps until their great- great-grandchildren are born.)

Those Taleban soldiers who are not guilty of war crimes should be turned over to there own government in Afghanistan to decide what to do with them. The same goes for others who have been caught up in the sweep and we have no evidence of any crime.

My reference to "all" we do at Guantanamo was to all we do with the denial of basic rights. I have no problem with the holding of war criminals. We should just not help folks like al Qaeda undermine our own basic liberties by resorting to methods we have condemned since the founding of the US.

We aren't talking about war crimes in the aftermath of a completed conflict. We're talking about active terrorist conspiracies. The analogy with Japan and Germany and Bosnia doesn't fit here because the situation is different in that respect. Some of these people were probably "just" in training to do things like release poison gas on the London tube. Can't very well try them for a war crime they haven't yet committed, but you can't very well just let them go carry it out first and then arrest them either. That's the problem. It's a very different situation with very difficult legal and security issues that have to be worked through.

We've been know to have military tribunals in the past (with Nazi spies) and we have seen the suspension of habeus corpus (sp?) under Linclon. Again, these are just not simple questions with simple answers.

IJ Reilly

Dec 4, 2003, 11:58 PM

I have a problem with the entire war analogy. Who is this war being waged against, precisely? How will we know when it's over? If these questions can't be answered definitively, then we're effectively giving our political leaders carte blanche to wage an endless war against and undefined enemy by whatever rules they see it. Some tried to turn the Cold War into very much this sort of conflict, and we know what kind of abuses resulted from that sad episode in our history.

Sayhey

Dec 5, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
We aren't talking about war crimes in the aftermath of a completed conflict. We're talking about active terrorist conspiracies. The analogy with Japan and Germany and Bosnia doesn't fit here because the situation is different in that respect. Some of these people were probably "just" in training to do things like release poison gas on the London tube. Can't very well try them for a war crime they haven't yet committed, but you can't very well just let them go carry it out first and then arrest them either. That's the problem. It's a very different situation with very difficult legal and security issues that have to be worked through.

We've been know to have military tribunals in the past (with Nazi spies) and we have seen the suspension of habeus corpus (sp?) under Linclon. Again, these are just not simple questions with simple answers.

Of course there are differences between this conflict and the others I mentioned. That does not mean that prisoners must be held indefinitely without any communication with attorneys or from family. I'm not calling for a "simple" solution to the cases of these men. I'm only calling for our government to follow internationally recognized standards of behavior towards prisoners of war. Standards we helped to create.

It seems to me that your approach is the simple one - let's just lock them all up with no rights and no prospect of freedom until one man, George W. Bush, says it is ok to do otherwise. Not the kind of approach that we need, IMO, as a democratic nation founded on the rule of law. We are hurting ourselves with this disregard for the principles we have struggled so long for in this country. Open trials and access to legal representation before appropriate courts of justice are things we should be promoting not ignoring.

zimv20

Dec 5, 2003, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Let's assume that of the 600 or so there, 400 are totally innocent and 200 are ready to carry out another 9/11-style attack at the first opportunity. [...] It's a bit harsh to say all we accomplish in Guantanamo is violation of rights. We also accomplish stopping some future terrorist attacks.

yes, excellent. let's be overzealous in who we lock up. after all, you find it okay to violate the rights of a few -- including withholding them from trial -- so long as you're relatively sure there's a few bad ones in there as well.

most serial killers are white males. maybe next time there's a serial killer loose in Illinois, they should lock up me and every other white male around. that way we know, right? and if the killings stop -- bingo! G5ROCKS' liberal prevention program worked!

and a good idea always scales, so maybe we should just nuke every country w/ a majority muslim population. or even a minority percentage, say 15. the US and UK would be fine, but think of all the lives we'd save! woo-hoo! go america!!!!

G5ROCKS

Dec 5, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
yes, excellent. let's be overzealous in who we lock up. after all, you find it okay to violate the rights of a few -- including withholding them from trial -- so long as you're relatively sure there's a few bad ones in there as well.

most serial killers are white males. maybe next time there's a serial killer loose in Illinois, they should lock up me and every other white male around. that way we know, right? and if the killings stop -- bingo! G5ROCKS' liberal prevention program worked!

and a good idea always scales, so maybe we should just nuke every country w/ a majority muslim population. or even a minority percentage, say 15. the US and UK would be fine, but think of all the lives we'd save! woo-hoo! go america!!!!

Your sarcastic response, filled with hyperbole, reflects a certain grain of truth. Take a step back and examine any system. In any system, you are going to have an error rate. Sometimes, the innocent are arrested (there are numerous examples), and sometimes the guilty get off free (see: OJ). It is inevitable that some innocent people will be arrested (one reason why the death penalty is so odious, you really can't do anything to rectify it if you later find you made an error). It is also inevitable that some guilty people will go free.

What you call overzealous, others will call under zealous, and others will call appropriate.
A good idea does not always scale. Have you never heard of too much of a good thing?

The detainess in Guantanamo tend to have something in common. While not all were captured in Afghanistan (some were in Pakistan, etc.) , most of them were captured while fighing in a war for either the Taliban or Al Qeada against the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. They tend to be members of a pretty limited club--in Afghanistan, with the Taliban or al Qeada, captured in a war there that was launched in response to 9/11. They are not, as a group, randomly picked up off the streets because they fit a profile.

IJ Reilly has a problem with the war analogy. So do I. Sayhey thinks they should be treated as POWs, but then, this isn't a traditional war, and they aren't traditional POWs. At the same time, they aren't traditional criminals with traditional evidence gatheing techniques used against them. Did the special forces guy who took Ahmed and ****al into custody read their Miranda Rights? Like I've said so many times, these issues are complex and difficult. They are not given to black and white answers, and there isn't a clear precedent established for such situations. Histrionics do not change that basic truth.

edit: It censored S-h-i-t-a-l. It's just a name.

toontra

Dec 5, 2003, 10:56 AM

Slightly off-topic, but when reading posts by newbie G5ROCKS I get a very strong sense of deja vu. Does anyone here remember the incredibly prolific (and pedantic) past member macfan who disappeared suddenly and without notice a few months ago.

No implication intended here - merely an observation.

Ugg

Dec 5, 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by toontra
Slightly off-topic, but when reading posts by newbie G5ROCKS I get a very strong sense of deja vu. Does anyone here remember the incredibly prolific (and pedantic) past member macfan who disappeared suddenly and without notice a few months ago.

No implication intended here - merely an observation.

Hmm, I was wondering about that, he does have the same general approach although the tone seems slightly different. Maybe I should go back and reread some of macfan's posts. Wanna bet that I'll see some of the same wording?

jefhatfield

Dec 5, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Ugg
Hmm, I was wondering about that, he does have the same general approach although the tone seems slightly different. Maybe I should go back and reread some of macfan's posts. Wanna bet that I'll see some of the same wording?

people come an go on the political forums due to it's nature... or when the political talk was in community discussion, and when it was in general discussion before that...it's a heavy topic

there were always a core set of politically aware mac users who were in one party or another and going at it posting at least five to ten posts each per day, every day, week in and week out

now i see zim, ugg, frohickey, G5rocks, and others as some of the major names in the political talks now...but before you had strong groups of various users who were very prolific and then dropped out...it kind of comes in squadrons of locust attacks:p

G5ROCKS

Dec 5, 2003, 11:51 AM

Hmm, I was wondering about that, he does have the same general approach although the tone seems slightly different. Maybe I should go back and reread some of macfan's posts. Wanna bet that I'll see some of the same wording?

Maybe you should! ;)

jefhatfield

Dec 5, 2003, 12:28 PM

;)

Sayhey

Dec 5, 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Maybe you should! ;)

Now that sounds like macfan!

Neserk

Jan 3, 2004, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
[B]If you want to understand why conservatives get so pissed off at Senator Clinton, figure out why the left gets so pissed off at President Bush. Once you've done that, you've got your answer.

So the Right hates Hilary because Bush is a moron? that makes sense... :confused:

Neserk

Jan 3, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
[B]having worked in a hospital myself, i have seen the industry dragged down by the insurance issue...fifteen percent unisured is unacceptable and the number increases, especially among middle class americans, white males who are over 30 and single, and other demographics not traditionally categorized as poor

*raises hand* that would be me! I'm not poor in the traditional sense... but I have no health insurance going on about 2 years now. Even if I could afford private health insurance I can get it do to my medical history. I'm over 30, have a Master's Degree. Go figure. Can't get a permanent job because I'm too educated. They can't afford me. THANK YOU BUSH!

manitoubalck

Jan 3, 2004, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Courts deal with things like rules of evidence. Wars do not.

No Wars are far more pointless, they just get people Killed.

manitoubalck

Jan 3, 2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Neserk
So the Right hates Hilary because Bush is a moron? that makes sense... :confused:

My friend I might even use that as my quote in the future, however I like my current one a little too much to do it right now.

Neserk

Jan 3, 2004, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
My friend I might even use that as my quote in the future, however I like my current one a little too much to do it right now.

:D

jefhatfield

Jan 3, 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Neserk
*raises hand* that would be me! I'm not poor in the traditional sense... but I have no health insurance going on about 2 years now. Even if I could afford private health insurance I can get it do to my medical history. I'm over 30, have a Master's Degree. Go figure. Can't get a permanent job because I'm too educated. They can't afford me. THANK YOU BUSH!

when america flattened their corporations in the late 80s/early 90s through now, people like you with BA/BS degress and master's degrees were left out in the cold...middle management, a staple of the postwar era slowly became extinct and many feel there is no need for people between low level supervisors and the owner/president/ceo of an organization

it's like an army with privates/corporals and generals with all the sgts and non flag officers sent to pasture

i am not implying in anyway that you are not ceo material or entrepreneur material, it's just that a lot of college educated people who companies used to put in the middle as so numerous and take up too much salary...you can try and get into a job where a degree would not matter and minimize your educational credentials on your resume so you can be considered for the job and not "over qualified"

i really feel sorry for the phd's out there who are not in education...i know a few and their lot is terrible since many have overwhelming school debt and many in society do not want to hire them for a perceived bad image many have of them not being good workers or practical people who can think on their feet

Neserk

Jan 3, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
when america flattened their corporations in the late 80s/early 90s through now, people like you with BA/BS degress and master's degrees were left out in the cold...middle management, a staple of the postwar era slowly became extinct and many feel there is no need for people between low level supervisors and the owner/president/ceo of an organization

it's like an army with privates/corporals and generals with all the sgts and non flag officers sent to pasture

i am not implying in anyway that you are not ceo material or entrepreneur material, it's just that a lot of college educated people who companies used to put in the middle as so numerous and take up too much salary...you can try and get into a job where a degree would not matter and minimize your educational credentials on your resume so you can be considered for the job and not "over qualified"

shoot me before I go there ;) My heart is in teaching.

i really feel sorry for the phd's out there who are not in education...i know a few and their lot is terrible since many have overwhelming school debt and many in society do not want to hire them for a perceived bad image many have of them not being good workers or practical people who can think on their feet

The really pathetic thing is that I'm *trying* to get a full time position as a teacher. So far, studies done with preschoolers have shown that if their teacher has a Bachelor's degree they fare better because the teacher has a larger vocabulary. I suspect they will find out that primary grades students that have teachers with Master's degrees will do the same. I substitute in a district where the students come from *very* poor homes and *need* that extra boost at school. They are truly shortchanging their students by not hiring people with Maser's Degrees.

manitoubalck

Jan 4, 2004, 12:48 AM

This is leading off topic a little but myeh:rolleyes:

I'm currently studing Mining Engineering, with a whopping 4 other people, employment is 100% after graduation @ $70,000AUD plus benifits within Australia, more over seas. Most students (all) have job offers and their degree paid for by third year (mining companies pay for the degrees under the condition that you go and work for them for a period of time afterwards.)

Nurses, Junior and secondary teachers are also in high demarnd in Australia with 100% employment after graduation, ~$45-50,000AUD a year with good holidays.

If your having trouble finding a job remember:
a) For a lage percentage of subscribers to this fourm, Fixing computers is easy (I'm guessing most would have experience,) and pays really, really well. Also cash if you do it privetly

b) Mining companies hire almost anyone, trian them and chuck them on the rock face. If push comes to shove head underground.

Unlike the IT bubble of 1999/2000, the mines will always be there until the end of time. Remember we can't build anything these days with out the materials they provide. That includes computers.