Hillary Clinton
Daniel A. brown
I asked my 77 year-old mother why so many people were criticizing Hillary
Clinton. Her response....
"BECAUSE SHE'S SMARTER THAN THEY ARE"
-Dan
--
Daniel A. Brown dbrown
Bernardston Elementary school Bernardston, Mass.
Laughing Bear Photography Shelburne Falls, MA
Brian Mcdonald
Not to put down your mother but chances are many of the people criticizing
HRC ARE MUCH SMARTER than her. I think the criticizim comes from the fact
that although no one elected her she seems to think she is president. Did
you notice how she separated herself from Bill as soon as the campaign was
over by adding Rodham to her "official" name. Why was she put in charge of
health care reform because she has Bill by the balls. Isn't a coincidence
that after the Gennifer Flowers episode she seemed to become Bill's #1
advisor. Hmm.. maybe Bill made a deal with the power hungry witch because
he knew the campaign couldn't withstand a divorce.Just some thoughts.
--
If you want to grow old don't crosss the road
-Pink Floyd
Daniel A. brown
In a previous article, mcdo...@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu (Brian Mcdonald) says:
>In article <1993Sep18.0...@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
>dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu (Daniel A. brown) wrote:
>
>>
>Not to put down your mother but chances are many of the people criticizing
>HRC ARE MUCH SMARTER than her. I think the criticizim comes from the fact
>that although no one elected her she seems to think she is president. Did
>you notice how she separated herself from Bill as soon as the campaign was
>over by adding Rodham to her "official" name. Why was she put in charge of
>health care reform because she has Bill by the balls. Isn't a coincidence
>that after the Gennifer Flowers episode she seemed to become Bill's #1
>advisor. Hmm.. maybe Bill made a deal with the power hungry witch because
>he knew the campaign couldn't withstand a divorce.Just some thoughts.
>
>
>--
>If you want to grow old don't crosss the road
> -Pink Floyd
>
Hmmmm....every time a woman is strong or independent, she is labeled a
"Power-hungry, ball-breaking bitch". I think that assuming that HRC has
gained diabolical control of the presidency is a silly exaggeration that
makes discussion impossible. She is intelligent and saying that no one
elected her to be an advisor to the president is saying that the entire
Cabinet or head of a department must be submitted to popular vote. The
Gennifer Flowers reference is a Republican cheap shot that has no bearing on
reality in that neither you nor I have inside knowledge...plus Clinton
family business is none of our business.
In my life, I have been in relationships and friendships with dozens of
women who were self-employed or otherwise independent. There is nothing to
fear, fellas.....your manhood is not being threatened by a powerful woman.
If Mrs. Clinton-Rodham manages to make sense out of our bureaucratic
health-care fiasco then most Americans will benefit including a lot of the
people who fear her independence.
-DAN
"Women Hold Up Half the Sky" - Hopi Proverb
Marc Mueller
Because she's a corrupt government official.
According to the Economist, Hillary Clinton has been making money on the
stock market by shorting health care stocks.
She is legally a government official and thus was allowed to hold her
"secret" meetings on health care.
Do we have to ask why the Justice Dept. doesn't prosecute?
If she can make some bucks off her own policies and avoid prosecution
then she must be smarter than the rest of us. ;-)
--Marc Mueller
Barry van Brunt
:>women who were self-employed or otherwise independent. There is nothing to
:>fear, fellas.....your manhood is not being threatened by a powerful woman.
:>If Mrs. Clinton-Rodham manages to make sense out of our bureaucratic
:>health-care fiasco then most Americans will benefit including a lot of the
:>people who fear her independence.
Thank you for your pentrating analysis and comforting reassurance but may I suggest you're missing the point.
"Hillary" could be the name of Clinton's brother, uncle, good buddy or pet chimp. The fact is she is an UNELECTED POLICY MAKER accountable to no one. Some of us actually don't agree with her view of the world.
Hard to believe?
Barry
-rohan-+Dunkerson C.B.
>"Hillary" could be the name of Clinton's brother, uncle, good buddy or pet
>chimp. The fact is she is an UNELECTED POLICY MAKER accountable to no one.
So were every presidential cabinet member since the constitution was re-written
I haven't heard anybody complaining about THEM being put their. About their
policies sure, but never about their right to hold the job. Of course almost
all of them were male... and the ones that weren't could be discounted as
'token-females' to make the equal oppurtunity people happy.
But giving the president's WIFE credit for having a brain? Absolutly not...
what sort of example will it set for the women of this country? A first lady
who has a job and abilities of her own? Ridiculous. The first lady is
supposed to be a good homemaker, buy new silverware, and adopt some worthy
cause (kinda like miss america).
Personally I think it's truly pathetic that so many of our first ladies HAVE
been non-working women. That and the uproar and choice of barbs thrown at
Hillary show just how backwards certain elements of the country still are.
--
Conrad B. Dunkerson -- con...@novalink.com
Bertrand de Levinwir -- con...@usl.com
B W Moll
Two problems with Hillary Clinton:
1. We didn't elect HER, so why is she setting public policy?
2. She has undue influence with the President, as she sleeps with him
at night. So, other than Genifer, who has that kind of inside (sic)
knowledge?
Regards-
Brent-
---
disclaimer: The views represented here are my own. Any similarity
between my views and the views of my employer is purely coincidence.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind
is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-- Dan Quayle
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent W. Moll Internet o...@mahler.ctd.ornl.gov
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge TN Phone: 615-574-6335 (USA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Marchington
: >"Hillary" could be the name of Clinton's brother, uncle, good buddy or pet
: >chimp. The fact is she is an UNELECTED POLICY MAKER accountable to no one.
: So were every presidential cabinet member since the constitution was re-written
: I haven't heard anybody complaining about THEM being put their. About their
: policies sure, but never about their right to hold the job. Of course almost
: all of them were male... and the ones that weren't could be discounted as
: 'token-females' to make the equal oppurtunity people happy.
Not to pick nits, but the cabinet appointees must be approved by
the Senate. Those are our representatives doing (hopefully) their
job of denying poor choices from becoming members of the cabinet.
This is most definitely not the case with Mrs. Clinton.
: But giving the president's WIFE credit for having a brain? Absolutly not...
: what sort of example will it set for the women of this country? A first lady
: who has a job and abilities of her own? Ridiculous. The first lady is
: supposed to be a good homemaker, buy new silverware, and adopt some worthy
: cause (kinda like miss america).
My, my, my. Got our undies in a knot, do we? Nobody is claiming that
Mrs. Clinton is unintelligent. All we are saying is that somebody
was placed in a position of making policy without there ever being any
review of her politics or qualifications. She was appointed to a
position of great power by virtue of her marital status. This is
quite blatant nepotism.
[deletia]
: --
: Conrad B. Dunkerson -- con...@novalink.com
: Bertrand de Levinwir -- con...@usl.com
--
Keith
Disclaimer: I am not a spokesman for Hewlett-Packard Co. In fact
they don't even know I am saying these things.
Daniel A. brown
In a previous article, con...@usl.com (-rohan-+Dunkerson C.B.) says:
>In article <27klnq$b...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> bar...@memory.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>>"Hillary" could be the name of Clinton's brother, uncle, good buddy or pet
>>chimp. The fact is she is an UNELECTED POLICY MAKER accountable to no one.
>
How many UNELECTED POLICY MAKERS were part of the Reagan-Bush years? Damn
too many and no one got to vote on them so your claim is somewhat invalid.
It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
view of womanhood.
As far as the Gennifer Flowers reference, the recent election showed that
most Americans didn't believe or care about her allegations. Considering the
Republican love of dirty-trick tactics, most people probably thought she was
a plant. And bringing her up now is the sort of low-class gutter snipe worthy
of a Pat Buchanan.
--
Daniel A. Brown dbrown
Laughing Bear Photography Shelburne Falls, MA
"Politics and religion are obsolete. It is now time for science and
spirituality" - Jawaharlal Nehru (and he should know!)
Peter J. Scotto
B W Moll
>
>As far as the Gennifer Flowers reference, the recent election showed that
>most Americans didn't believe or care about her allegations. Considering the
>Republican love of dirty-trick tactics, most people probably thought she was
>a plant. And bringing her up now is the sort of low-class gutter snipe worthy
>of a Pat Buchanan.
James Kliegel
>>>"Hillary" could be the name of Clinton's brother, uncle, good buddy or pet
>>>chimp. The fact is she is an UNELECTED POLICY MAKER accountable to no one.
>How many UNELECTED POLICY MAKERS were part of the Reagan-Bush years? Damn
>too many and no one got to vote on them so your claim is somewhat invalid.
Ah yes; the elementary school excuse "But they did it too, FIRST!!!".
What was that you were saying about teaching your pupils morality?
James
---
======================================================================
James M. Kliegel
kli...@key.amdahl.com (510) 623-3148
======================================================================
Keith Marchington
: How many UNELECTED POLICY MAKERS were part of the Reagan-Bush years? Damn
: too many and no one got to vote on them so your claim is somewhat invalid.
: It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
: result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
: of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
: view of womanhood.
You, Dan, have an amazing ability to paint all people who disagree
with you as some sort of mental nincompoop. While sometimes an
effective debate tactic, it says more about you than about any of
us on the other side of the debate.
For all you know, Dan, the group of people objecting to Hillary's
participation in the health care reform task force may have been just
as vocal in objection to certain abuses of a similar nature during
each of the past administrations. I know that I have been. But no,
we are "doltish men" (those women I know who think Hillary shouldn't
be where she is are going to be surprised at their newfound gender)
who are hopelessly stuck in the "Barbie-doll" mentality. Thank you
for clarifying my mental state. I had no idea.
I feel extremely sad for the children in your class (you did say you
were an elementary school teacher.) To be confronted with the
stereotypes and generalizations that you continue to display here is
going to warp their impressionable little minds. At the end of their
stay with you, they are probably going to think all men are louts
incapable of rational thought. But then, they will have learned by
your shining example.
While I politely disagree with you position on Hillary, your
stereotyping makes me want to puke.
Jim Surlow
>From: kli...@key.amdahl.com (James Kliegel)
>Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton
>Date: 21 Sep 1993 16:46:58 GMT
>In article 82...@k12.ucs.umass.edu, dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu (Daniel A. brown) writes:
>>>In article <27klnq$b...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> bar...@memory.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>>>"Hillary" could be the name of Clinton's brother, uncle, good buddy or pet
>>>>chimp. The fact is she is an UNELECTED POLICY MAKER accountable to no one.
>
>>How many UNELECTED POLICY MAKERS were part of the Reagan-Bush years? Damn
>>too many and no one got to vote on them so your claim is somewhat invalid.
>
>Ah yes; the elementary school excuse "But they did it too, FIRST!!!".
>
>What was that you were saying about teaching your pupils morality?
>
>James
The reason that I am annoyed with the UNELECTED POLICY MAKER is the way that
the election campaign went. As the Democrats went to paint Republicans as
unfair for attacking the liberal Hillary. "Oh, she is just going to be the
first lady, she is not going to be a liberal influence. Her political
stance has nothing to do with anything" (not a direct quote, but similar to
the election spiel that was going on). We knew it was coming and that the
election stance was a lie, but you can't tell that to people who hadn't made
up their minds, because that would be a dirty attack.
Now we see Hillary's influence BIG TIME: Not only health care, but on the
insistance that the Attorney General be a woman. I don't appose to a woman
holding the post. But, being that the first qualification be someone's sex (
man or woman) makes things difficult to swallow. I'm sure there are other
issues which illustrate Hillary's influence that the more informed on this
newsgroup can point out.
Jim Surlow
jdsu...@uci.edu
Daniel A. brown
In a previous article, k...@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) says:
>participation in the health care reform task force may have been just
>as vocal in objection to certain abuses of a similar nature during
>each of the past administrations. I know that I have been. But no,
>we are "doltish men" (those women I know who think Hillary shouldn't
>be where she is are going to be surprised at their newfound gender)
>who are hopelessly stuck in the "Barbie-doll" mentality. Thank you
>for clarifying my mental state. I had no idea.
>
>I feel extremely sad for the children in your class (you did say you
>were an elementary school teacher.) To be confronted with the
>stereotypes and generalizations that you continue to display here is
>going to warp their impressionable little minds. At the end of their
>stay with you, they are probably going to think all men are louts
>incapable of rational thought. But then, they will have learned by
>your shining example.
>
Actually, I rarely discuss national politics in the classroom for the simple
reason that 4th graders would probably be either too shocked at the violent
society they are about to be thrust into or too bored. Their "little minds"
as you call them are pretty sharp and they know more about right and wrong than
they are given credit for.
I do not teach stereotypes or hatred for any groups in my classroom. I do
teach that boys and girls have equal abilities, equal opportunities and equal
rights to learn and develop as they wish. If you have a problem with that, I
can't help you.
Quite frankly, I am proud of the influence (if any) I might
have on my students because I teach them to be fair. Considering all the
complaining that goes down about teachers not teaching "morals", I am a
teacher who tries to. Violence to others, dishonestly, discrimination, and
preying on those weaker than you are things I deal with as they come up. I
communicate in language they understand. I do not preach political venom.
The parents of my kids are VietNam vets, old hippies, NRA members, church
goers and pacifists just to give you some variety. I get along with them
quite well because we respect each other despite our politics. If I get a
bit hot under the collar here, it is partially the nature of impersonal
computer communication which obviously would be more civil if we were all
face to face.
On the other hand, I see some trends which I will express on and if the shoe
fits, wear it. Yes, I believe that the reaction to Hillary Clinton is a
sexist response to an independent woman. That does not make her a saint, a
political miracle worker or a presidential surrogate. The issue of health
care will eventually be decided by the same old atrophied hacks who pass as
our Congress (and I include the Democrats equally in this definition), not by
her. Like some of the conservative posters on this net, I feel that our
country is a long shot away from government by the people. On the other
hand, I do not consider the Clinton Administration to be some new Evil
Empire, co-opted by Catherine DiMedici. I would respect someone who just
tells the truth without disguising it behind some convoluted political
rhetoric.
The kids are alright........
John Sims
cabinet members if they aren't performing to his liking. Do you really think
Bill is going to fire Hillary, no matter how much she may screw up?
John
Aaron J. Greewnood
Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
>result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
>of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
>view of womanhood.
Often the male feminist will bash other men with gender bigotry rather
than present favorable arguments in favor of women. Such is the case
here. Often I feel the male feminist is the type of man who resents
the achievements of other men and often feels inferior to them. He
is not motivated by a love and respect for women but more a fear of
other men, as you clearly show.
If you could defend Mrs. Clinton on merit why did you not do so.
Why did you choose to bash other men as a means of showing you
approval of Mrs. Clinton?
This "men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
of powrer" type of argument is lame and old. You statements reak of
resentment and malice towards men and they do nothing to promote Mrs.
Clinton.
>"Politics and religion are obsolete. It is now time for science and
> spirituality" - Jawaharlal Nehru (and he should know!)
If you really were as spritual as you seem to indicate you would
not be showing malice towards men in the manner you are doing.
Gender bigots are not spirtual people. And you Danny Boy are
a gender bigot.
starbuck
Jim Halat
> In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
> Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
> >It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
> >result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
> >of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
> >view of womanhood.
I agree.
> Often the male feminist will bash other men with gender bigotry rather
> than present favorable arguments in favor of women. Such is the case
> here. Often I feel the male feminist is the type of man who resents
> the achievements of other men and often feels inferior to them. He
> is not motivated by a love and respect for women but more a fear of
> other men, as you clearly show.
Trust me, Aaron, I do not feel inferior to you in any way shape or form.
> If you could defend Mrs. Clinton on merit why did you not do so.
> Why did you choose to bash other men as a means of showing you
> approval of Mrs. Clinton?
Because he was addressing the Hillary-bashing and why people seem to
do it. What you are asking for is a different topic.
> This "men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
> of powrer" type of argument is lame and old. You statements reak of
> resentment and malice towards men and they do nothing to promote Mrs.
> Clinton.
What's really lame is your take on feminist men.
> >"Politics and religion are obsolete. It is now time for science and
> > spirituality" - Jawaharlal Nehru (and he should know!)
> If you really were as spritual as you seem to indicate you would
> not be showing malice towards men in the manner you are doing.
> Gender bigots are not spirtual people. And you Danny Boy are
> a gender bigot.
He's not a gender bigot. You are. You are completely intolerant
of a men who support some of the feminist ideals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jim halat e-mail: ha...@bear.com
Michael J. Edelman
Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
>It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
>result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
>of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
>view of womanhood.
>
that bit of brilliance! Yeah, and people bashed Nancy Reagan because she was
a woman, too, right? I seem to recall a lot of leftists complaining that she
was in the loop back then...and she wasn't even elected! Golly.
Could it be possible, in your constricted universe, that perhaps some people
don't want Hillary Clinton making policy, and doing for the US what she did
for Arkansas?
--mike
Jacqueline U. Robertson
>
>>view of womanhood.
>>
>
>Well, it's certainly obvious that precious little critical thinking went into
>that bit of brilliance! Yeah, and people bashed Nancy Reagan because she was
>a woman, too, right? I seem to recall a lot of leftists complaining that she
>was in the loop back then...and she wasn't even elected! Golly.
>
>
The left HATED the fact that Nancy Reagan had any influence, and the
right HATES the fact that Hillary Clinton has any influence...
I think it's fairly obvious that the spouse of the president will wield
influence... How many married people are willing to say that their spouse
does NOT influence them ?
What I think is a possible problem for Pres. Clinton is that Hillary has a
position of influence (health care reform leader) from which he could not
easily dismiss her if there were a scandal/policy problem. So far that
hasn't been a problem, and perhaps it won't be. I'd guess that it would be
a cold night in the white house if the President relieved her of her duties,
though....
James A. Robertson
----------
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are mine, and do not necessarily
reflect those of my employer or any affiliated companies
Daniel A. brown
In a previous article, m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman) says:
>In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
>Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>>
>
>Could it be possible, in your constricted universe, that perhaps some people
>don't want Hillary Clinton making policy, and doing for the US what she did
>for Arkansas?
>
>--mike
>
Neither Hillary Clinton nor any other presidential wife makes policy
in this country. It is Congress that will eventually decide whether health-care
reform becomes the law of the land, not Hillary Clinton. I am still curious
why health care reform is considered such an odious thought on this net.
Even Bob Dole, hardly a tax-and-spend liberal, has voiced his willingness to
work on this. Anyone with a family, a job and an income sees this not as
some lofty philosophical debate but whether it will ultimately save their
health and their bank accounts.
-DAN
--
Daniel A. Brown dbrown
Laughing Bear Photography Shelburne Falls, MA
Daniel A. brown
In a previous article, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (Aaron J. Greewnood) says:
>In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
>Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
>Often the male feminist will bash other men with gender bigotry rather
>than present favorable arguments in favor of women. Such is the case
>here. Often I feel the male feminist is the type of man who resents
>the achievements of other men and often feels inferior to them. He
>is not motivated by a love and respect for women but more a fear of
>other men, as you clearly show.
>
"Male Feminist"? back during the Civil Rights movement, whites who
supported the African-American cause were called "NIGGER-LOVERS".
Does "White Feminist" comes from the same mindset? I admit it is cleaner and
more politically correct.
As far as being a "gender-bigot", some of my best friends are men (ha-ha-ha)
including my 18 year old son whom I love and adore. I associate with the
male end of the human spectrum daily without rancor. Unless you have a PhD
in psychology, you might want to keep your pop psycho-babble to yourself.
Assuming you are a college student, please realize that most young
politicos (feminists, radicals of all stripes) suffer from youthful
arrogance and a sense of I-KNOW-IT-ALL-ism (this is not a flame on your
generation, the '60's crowd was just as bad). College feminist women, I'm
sure might be hard to take at times (as are some college men).
Feminist women in their 30's and 40's are mellower because their maturity
allows them to live their independence, instead of clobbering everyone over
the head with it. As a result, they can and do coexist with most men without
any feeling of mutual threat. Of course, there are degrees and people act
individually.
This is my opinion only and not that of Groucho Marx or Camille Piglia
-DAN!
--
Daniel A. Brown dbrown
Laughing Bear Photography Shelburne Falls, MA
Frank Pittel
: In article <27slq5$m...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu writes:
: >
: >>view of womanhood.
: >>
: >
: >Well, it's certainly obvious that precious little critical thinking went into
: >that bit of brilliance! Yeah, and people bashed Nancy Reagan because she was
: >a woman, too, right? I seem to recall a lot of leftists complaining that she
: >was in the loop back then...and she wasn't even elected! Golly.
: >
: >
: I think the above says it all - it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
: The left HATED the fact that Nancy Reagan had any influence, and the
: right HATES the fact that Hillary Clinton has any influence...
I don't think it's so much the fact of her influence that bothers the
right. It's the hypocracy that went into it all. During the election
any mention of hillary, her beliefs, and role in government was
decried by the left wing as an unfair attack at the poor wife of a
presidential candidate. "How dare you say anything bad about my wife,
she's not even running for office I am. "Leave her out of it." This
was after Slick Willie made his two for one speach.
: I think it's fairly obvious that the spouse of the president will wield
: influence... How many married people are willing to say that their spouse
: does NOT influence them ?
Don't you then agree that when electing a president the amount and
type of influence his/her spouse has is a legitimate issue in the campaign.
: What I think is a possible problem for Pres. Clinton is that Hillary has a
: position of influence (health care reform leader) from which he could not
: easily dismiss her if there were a scandal/policy problem. So far that
: hasn't been a problem, and perhaps it won't be. I'd guess that it would be
: a cold night in the white house if the President relieved her of her duties,
: though....
: James A. Robertson
: ----------
: Disclaimer: The views expressed above are mine, and do not necessarily
: reflect those of my employer or any affiliated companies
--
-----------------------------------
Frank Pittel f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com
Myron D'souza
From my point of view, Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman, who is definitely a major reason for Bill Clinton's rise to power. She is extremely intelligent, and I think that Americans should be glad that there is there is someone extremely intelligent behind the president, and not some airbag.
And remember this is from a Canadian.
____ ,----------------------------------, . _ .
/# /_\_ | Myron D'Souza | |\_|/__/|
| |/o\o\ | //////////////////////////////// | / / \/ \ \
| \\_/_/ | AXE software development | /__|O||O|__ \
/ |_ | | Ericsson Communications Inc. | |/_ \_/\_/ _\ |
| ||\_ ~| | | | | (____) | ||
| ||| \/ | Town of Mount Royal, Quebec | \/\___/\//
| |||_ | CANADA | (_/ ||
\// | |Internet: lmc...@lmc.ericsson.se | | ||
|| | | | | ||\
||_ \ | | \ //_/
\_| o| | | \______//
/\___/ | | __ || __||
/ ||||__ | | (____(____)
(___)_) |----------------------------------| /***********\
DISCLAIMER: My opinions are mine alone, and definitely not thiose of my employer or
affiliated parties .... I'm too smart for them!
Aaron J. Greewnood
>Aaron J. Greewnood (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
> > In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
> > Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
> > >It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
> > >result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
> > >of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
> > >view of womanhood.
>I agree.
What is it you agree to? It be that your arguments are without merit, so you
agree with another stupid variation on the, "men who can't handle strong women
argument". I'll tell you Jimbo, strong women don't need that type of argument
to protect themselves. Strong women Jimbo know how to take care of themselves.
They don't need no "stinkin male feminist" to bash men to prove they have worth.
Stong women Jimbo, can stand on their own merit, they don't need a man, even
holy and rightous feminist males like you and Dan to protect them. I think
you and Danny Boy are the type of males who are resentful of other men.
> > Often the male feminist will bash other men with gender bigotry rather
> > than present favorable arguments in favor of women. Such is the case
> > here. Often I feel the male feminist is the type of man who resents
> > the achievements of other men and often feels inferior to them. He
> > is not motivated by a love and respect for women but more a fear of
> > other men, as you clearly show.
>Trust me, Aaron, I do not feel inferior to you in any way shape or form.
Of course you do, why else would you be so resentful towards successful
men or white hetrosexuals to be exact? Why else would you support the
type of clear sexist and gender bigoted arguments that pit men against
women, or bash men, instead of favoring positive arguments that support
the lives and issues of women.
I tell you what I think motivates you and other male feminists,
It is that you are fearful and resentful of other men. It has nothing
to do with women or their rights. It is just a place for you to hide
your contempt for your own gender. Many male feminists do not promote
women nor do they rejoyce at the accoplishments and sucesses of women.
No they don't, they put down their own gender pretending that they
are rightous and good and fighting for women. Bullshit Jimbo. Your a
gender bigot Jimbo.
What else could be the reason for associating rape with being a member
of the gender male and not associating it with being a criminal. In a
previous post you implied that MEN "need to be taught that it is not ok
to rape women". As if almost all men don't know that. Explain how that
is not gender bigory, oh wonderful and rightous male feminist.
Explain oh holy, rightous and moral feminist male, how in one post you can
deny that "all men are rapists and that is all they are" is not a theme of
feminism. Then in the next one suggesting that "Men need to be taught not
to rape". That associates the act of rape with the gender male and not
with the criminal. Jimbo, it is criminals who rape not the gender male.
Get your story straight, either you believe all men are rapists or you
don't. ( I replied to that other post also, Mr. Gender Bigot. )
> > If you could defend Mrs. Clinton on merit why did you not do so.
> > Why did you choose to bash other men as a means of showing you
> > approval of Mrs. Clinton?
>Because he was addressing the Hillary-bashing and why people seem to
>do it. What you are asking for is a different topic.
Right, are we playing let's pretend? Hillary-bashing may just
be that some hold opinions that differ from her. Perhaps, to some
people, Mrs. Clinton is not a goddess nor the greatest example of a
women to ever live. There have been many, many, great women thoughout
time, if you would study history, instead of feminist dogma, you would
know that.
> > This "men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
> > of powrer" type of argument is lame and old. You statements reak of
> > resentment and malice towards men and they do nothing to promote Mrs.
> > Clinton.
>What's really lame is your take on feminist men.
Oh, it is. Really, with their own words they have often show themselves
to be gender bigots. Male feminists more often expound and ponticate on
the evils of men.
> > >"Politics and religion are obsolete. It is now time for science and
> > > spirituality" - Jawaharlal Nehru (and he should know!)
> > If you really were as spritual as you seem to indicate you would
> > not be showing malice towards men in the manner you are doing.
> > Gender bigots are not spirtual people. And you Danny Boy are
> > a gender bigot.
>He's not a gender bigot. You are. You are completely intolerant
>of a men who support some of the feminist ideals.
It is not being a gender bigot to be intolerant of the anti-man
bigotry of male feminists. It is not being a gender bigot to stand
up against the slander of men by male feminists. It is not gender
bigotry to take a stand agaist people who hide behind women's issues.
What is clear is that other men that is the focus of their resentment
and malice is not gender bigotry to fight back Is the right thing to
do.
starbuck
Aaron J. Greewnood
Myron D'souza <lmc...@LMC.Ericsson.SE> wrote:
> Well from all these arguments about Hillary it appears that
> Americans are not comfortable with a woman in a position to wield
> political power. I guess that's why they say that it will be a
> long time before there is a woman president in the U.S.
First it is the resentful and malcontent male feminists making
excuses for Mrs. Clinton's lack of absolute worship by the public
of her being becasue, "men can't handle a strong women." Now one
of our friends from Canada has decided it is Americans who are
not confortable with a woman in a position to wield political
power.
Get a clue friend. Do you think that just because
she is a women we all have to bow down and worship the ground
she walks on and if we don't then we prove we are not confortable
with strong women? That is leftist crap.
You act like Mrs. Clinton is the only strong women who ever lived.
It is an insult to women to pretend such a thing. Oh I know she
is the first American socialist type that you see as worthy of
being called a strong women. But be advised thoughout history
their have been many, many, many, strong and worthy women. Women
of courage and honor that would put Mrs. Clinton to shame. Shame
on you for not recognizing that fact.
She has to prove herself before she can claim the title of
greatest women that has ever lived. Some people call Mrs.
Clinton strong and remarkable but they don't say why?
It seems all they can do is make excuses for her and
bash those who are critical of her. I think she is a
socialist with the mindset of a bolshevik. Strong
women yes, but one who does not believe in liberty or the
political foundation on which our country was founded.
One who should be opposed for political reasons not
gender reasons. I really get sick of you clowns who think
that women can do no wrong and that to be critical of
a women is somehow sexist. Take the PC blinders off and
you may begin to see reality and not a world filtered
thought dogma.
starbuck
David Reed
|> Well from all these arguments about Hillary it appears that Americans are not comfortable
|> with a woman in a position to wield political power. I guess that's why they say that it will be
|> a long time before there is a woman president in the U.S.
|>
BAAAHHHNNNKKK! WRONG Myron!! There are lots of women I would like to see in positions of
power. Here are a few of them:
Phyllis Schlafly.
Marylin Quayle.
Jean Kirkpatrick.
My favorite political leader of the century is a woman : Lady Margeret Thatcher.
|> From my point of view, Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman, who is definitely
|> a major reason for Bill Clinton's rise to power. She is extremely intelligent,
Relative to you perhaps.
|> and I think
|> that Americans should be glad that there is there is someone extremely intelligent|>
|> behind the president, and not some airbag.
|>
Some more "intelligent" women in power:
Eva Braun.
The Empress Dowager of China.
or better yet...
Evita Peron
Hmmmmm... "Don't cry for me Arkansaw-ah."
|> And remember this is from a Canadian.
|>
Obviously! You don't have to live in the country being run by these clowns.
Jim Halat
> In article <33...@ursa.bear.com>, Jim Halat <ha...@panther.bear.com> wrote:
> >Aaron J. Greewnood (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
> > > In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
> > > Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
> > > >It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
> > > >result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
> > > >of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
> > > >view of womanhood.
> >I agree.
> What is it you agree to? It be that your arguments are without merit, so you
> agree with another stupid variation on the, "men who can't handle strong women
> argument".
> I'll tell you Jimbo, strong women don't need that type of argument
> to protect themselves.
Who said they did? We're talking about the reasons insecure men turn
to Jelly around a strong woman, especially a feminist.
> Strong women Jimbo know how to take care of themselves.
Who said they couldn't? We're not talking about that.
> They don't need no "stinkin male feminist" to bash men to prove they have worth.
I love it. You can't handle the criticism. You call it bashing where there
is none. It's a fact, son. And you don't have the security to admit it.
> Stong women Jimbo, can stand on their own merit, they don't need a man, even
> holy and rightous feminist males like you and Dan to protect them. I think
> you and Danny Boy are the type of males who are resentful of other men.
I doubt you think much at all. Your generalizations make you sound foolish
and resentful yourself. ( I like men more than you could possibly imagine. =8-o )
> >Trust me, Aaron, I do not feel inferior to you in any way shape or form.
> Of course you do, why else would you be so resentful towards successful
> men or white hetrosexuals to be exact? Why else would you support the
> type of clear sexist and gender bigoted arguments that pit men against
> women, or bash men, instead of favoring positive arguments that support
> the lives and issues of women.
Boy, you need to get over yourself. The discussion we were having had
nothing to do with Hillary's merits or shortfalls. It had to do with
the way some men have knee-jerked themselves to their foreheads over
the fact that *she* has a position of power in the governement. I don't
need to defend her. Her merits stand on their own. However, it is
quite accurate to point up to the fact that some men are insecure
around strong women.
> I tell you what I think motivates you and other male feminists,
> It is that you are fearful and resentful of other men. It has nothing
> to do with women or their rights. It is just a place for you to hide
> your contempt for your own gender. Many male feminists do not promote
> women nor do they rejoyce at the accoplishments and sucesses of women.
You have no idea what male feminists *think*. You are clueless in the
matter. Your shallow insights are foolish and without basis.
> No they don't, they put down their own gender pretending that they
> are rightous and good and fighting for women. Bullshit Jimbo. Your a
> gender bigot Jimbo.
Whatever you say, sweetheart. I understand that you're not very bright and
you cannot help yourself, so I'll go along to make it easier for you.
Barry van Brunt
:>
:> Well from all these arguments about Hillary it appears that Americans are not :>comfortable with a woman in a position to wield political power. I guess that's why :>they say that it will be a long time before there is a woman president in the U.S.
This is about IDEOLOGY, not gender. I'd prefer Margaret Thatcher to Bill Clinton as president in a flash. Please explain why this is so, given my sexism.(Warning: silly stereotyping or mindless putdowns will be considered proof of intellectual destitution)
Regarding Hillary:
I don't want her health care card
I think her "politics of meaning" is alot of prattle
I reject her definition of "what it means to be a human being"
...and I resent her covertly obtaining her current position of authority
:>
:> From my point of view, Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman, who is definitely :>a major reason for Bill Clinton's rise to power. She is extremely intelligent, and I :>think that Americans should be glad that there is there is someone extremely :>intelligent behind the president, and not some airbag.
:>
:>And remember this is from a Canadian.
The appropriate response to the above is "butt out", but it's obvious you intend only
to irritate. I'll just consider you another bitter, anti-US foreigner who is just tickled pink to have the Clintons in charge.
I hope Clinton annexes eastern Canada. Then we can all enjoy Hillary's extreme intelligence together.
Barry
Mark O. Wilson
|It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
|result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
|of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
|view of womanhood.
You make a statement like the above, and then have the nerve to call other
people bigotted. It's pretty obvious that you have no familiarity with
critical thinking, or thinking in general fro that matter.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
James Kliegel
>This is about IDEOLOGY, not gender. I'd prefer Margaret Thatcher to Bill Clinton as
> president in a flash. Please explain why this is so, given my sexism.(Warning: silly
> stereotyping or mindless putdowns will be considered proof of intellectual destitution)
Clinton hell! I wanted to swap REAGAN for Lady Thatcher. Her handling of the unions,
the Falklands War, privitizing of the socialist state. Made me want to apply for
readmission to the Commonwealth.
Jim Halat
> Myron D'souza <lmc...@LMC.Ericsson.SE> wrote:
> > Well from all these arguments about Hillary it appears that
> > Americans are not comfortable with a woman in a position to wield
> > political power. I guess that's why they say that it will be a
> > long time before there is a woman president in the U.S.
> First it is the resentful and malcontent male feminists making
> excuses for Mrs. Clinton's lack of absolute worship by the public
> of her being becasue, "men can't handle a strong women." Now one
> of our friends from Canada has decided it is Americans who are
> not confortable with a woman in a position to wield political
> power.
You really are a piece of work, Aaron. "excuses for Mrs. Clinton's
lack of absolute worship by the public" What a hoot! You really can't
stand the fact that a bright, articulate, liberal, feminist, female
lawyer is in a position of that kind of power, can you?
> Get a clue friend. Do you think that just because
> she is a women we all have to bow down and worship the ground
> she walks on and if we don't then we prove we are not confortable
> with strong women? That is leftist crap.
No one asked you to do anything of the sort. But when I hear terms
like Billary floated around, I have to laugh and agree with our
Canadian friend.
> You act like Mrs. Clinton is the only strong women who ever lived.
> It is an insult to women to pretend such a thing. Oh I know she
> is the first American socialist type that you see as worthy of
> being called a strong women. But be advised thoughout history
> their have been many, many, many, strong and worthy women. Women
> of courage and honor that would put Mrs. Clinton to shame. Shame
> on you for not recognizing that fact.
Oh, good lord! Calm down. Your mind is runnign three shifts around
the clock to manufacture this drivel.
> She has to prove herself before she can claim the title of
> greatest women that has ever lived. Some people call Mrs.
> Clinton strong and remarkable but they don't say why?
She's an articulate speaker and a successful lawyer. That's enough
to give her the credit that is due her. No one but you is making the
claim that anyone thinks that she the greatest woman who has ever lived.
> It seems all they can do is make excuses for her and
> bash those who are critical of her.
Listen to you. Excusing Hillary-bashers as the the victims of
resentful, insecure, and malcontent male feminists is the height
of wht you are trying to criticize. Why don't you tell us why
she is not up to the job -- if you are going to continue to
defend those who say she is not?
> I think she is a
> socialist with the mindset of a bolshevik. Strong
> women yes, but one who does not believe in liberty or the
> political foundation on which our country was founded.
> One who should be opposed for political reasons not
> gender reasons. I really get sick of you clowns who think
> that women can do no wrong and that to be critical of
> a women is somehow sexist. Take the PC blinders off and
> you may begin to see reality and not a world filtered
> thought dogma.
You think this way about all liberals in office, don't you? I
haven't heard you make much noise about getting rid of the men.
Could it be because it's her gender that bothers you more?
Aaron J. Greewnood
>You really are a piece of work, Aaron. "excuses for Mrs. Clinton's
>lack of absolute worship by the public" What a hoot! You really can't
>stand the fact that a bright, articulate, liberal, feminist, female
>lawyer is in a position of that kind of power, can you?
Are you really that full of ressentment and anger at other men that
you are so blind to the fact that you have just proved my point.
In you own words you accuse me of not being able to stand her because
of "the usual list of bullshit." What I can't stand is _her politics_,
not her gender. THat's a difference you male feminist robots can't
understand. I and many other don't care for her politics.
If you really respected her you would use the name she prefers and not
Mrs. Clinton. The whole point of my posts was that male feminists
like youself resort to gender bigotry when people do not agree with
your opinion of Mrs. Clinton.
> > You act like Mrs. Clinton is the only strong women who ever lived.
> > It is an insult to women to pretend such a thing. Oh I know she
> > is the first American socialist type that you see as worthy of
> > being called a strong women. But be advised thoughout history
> > their have been many, many, many, strong and worthy women. Women
> > of courage and honor that would put Mrs. Clinton to shame. Shame
> > on you for not recognizing that fact.
>
>Oh, good lord! Calm down. Your mind is runnign three shifts around
>the clock to manufacture this drivel.
Hardly drival my male feminist. In that one paragraph I made more
positve references to women then you have in many a post. Note that
I recognize the there are many strong women of courage and honor.
You on the other hand, in you posts, see women as the victims of men.
Women are much much more than only victims. But where would feminism
be without victims.
I am getting tired of you.
starbuck
RI...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
dislike her quite so much. It seems to me that both Bill and Hillary have
to play certain parts and it is fairly hard to know what they actually
think, but I myself would not be surprised if they both turned out to
be moderates in liberal clothing. If I am wrong, please tell me why.
A couple of days ago the NYTimes complained that Clinton is not planning to
use abortion as a litmus test for non SC appointments. However, even Ginzberg
has reservations about Roe v Wade (she would probably uphold it, but she
seems skeptical of the reasoning). Also, in his acceptance speech,
Clinton said that he wanted abortion to be legal, safe and rare. It seems
that everyone has forgotten that word `rare'.
Don't the Clintons go to Church? I really wonder if they actually are
left wing nuts, as some people seem to think they are.
Rohit Parikh
Chris Woodard
>Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>>
>>It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
>>result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
>>of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
>>view of womanhood.
>>
>
>Well, it's certainly obvious that precious little critical thinking went into
>that bit of brilliance! Yeah, and people bashed Nancy Reagan because she was
>a woman, too, right? I seem to recall a lot of leftists complaining that she
>was in the loop back then...and she wasn't even elected! Golly.
>
It could have had more to do with the fact that Nancy Reagan was a brainless
simp, adjusting her husband's speaking schedule on the advice of her
astrologer, lavishly redecorating the White House, wearing designer gowns even
as her hubby was attacking poverty programs, and other public relations
gaffes.
Keith W Ammann
>Jacqueline U. Robertson (j...@cs.umbc.edu) wrote:
>
>: I think it's fairly obvious that the spouse of the president will wield
>: influence... How many married people are willing to say that their spouse
>: does NOT influence them ?
>
>Don't you then agree that when electing a president the amount and
>type of influence his/her spouse has is a legitimate issue in the campaign.
Not really -- no more so, at any rate, than the amount and type of
influence his campaign manager or any other person has. No one, as
I recall, ever complained about the amount of influence James Baker
wielded over George Bush, for example.
Some people have suggested that it is hypocritical to criticize Nancy
Reagan for peddling influence but not to criticize Hillary Rodham
Clinton. I think there are two significant differences here. First,
Mrs. Clinton is a former lawyer and lobbyist, whereas Mrs. Reagan was
merely a former socialite, who was getting many of recommendations from
an astrologer, of all people. In my mind, that makes Mrs. Clinton a
considerably more qualified adviser. Second, it can (and probably
will) be argued that Clinton has a stronger grasp of the problems the
government faces and a greater interest in solving them not only to
his supporters' satisfaction but to his opponents' than Reagan did.
This degree of engagement, to me, makes any influence Mrs. Clinton has
over her husband far less risky in terms of political outcomes than
the influence Mrs. Reagan had over her husband. President Clinton may
be wishy-washy, but President Reagan was completely disengaged.
--
: "When I tell a girl I am working : Keith Ammann is Pros...@cup.portal.com :
: at McDonald's, right away I can :..........................................:
: get her name and phone number." : Support your right to be true to :
: -- Aleksei Andreyev, Moscow : yourself -- support the First Amendment! :
: Chaos is not helpful! :
Keith W Ammann
>Are you really that full of ressentment and anger at other men that
>you are so blind to the fact that you have just proved my point.
>In you own words you accuse me of not being able to stand her because
>of "the usual list of bullshit." What I can't stand is _her politics_,
>not her gender. THat's a difference you male feminist robots can't
>understand. I and many other don't care for her politics.
If Greewnood (cq?) were more rational and less defensive, he would have
stopped there, as he had already stated a fairly sensible belief in a
straightforward manner. Then he goes on to make himself look like an
idiot:
>The whole point of my posts was that male feminists
>like youself resort to gender bigotry when people do not agree with
>your opinion of Mrs. Clinton.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>Hardly drival my male feminist. . . .
>You on the other hand, in you posts, see women as the victims of men.
>Women are much much more than only victims. But where would feminism
>be without victims.
>
>I am getting tired of you.
We have two examples of "male feminist" used as a derogatory term (as
though being a feminist were bad enough, but being a MALE feminist is
treason to a man's gender); one reference to "gender bigotry," a phrase
that he has beaten to death in his last half dozen posts, which seems
to suggest that he outdoes the so-called politically correct in his
oversensitivity to criticism from outside his camp; and the silly
rhetorical question, "Where would feminism be without victims?" to
which the obvious answer is: If women had not been victimized, OF
COURSE there would be no "feminism" -- there would be no need for it.
If he didn't give off so many mixed signals, perhaps he would find this
oppressive "gender bigotry" quietly fading away. Unfortunately for him
(and for us who have to read his verbal seizures), his overreaction to
Jim Halat's suggestions only makes the reader wonder if he is not more
biased than he cares to admit. Methinks the gentleman doth protest
too much.
Frank Pittel
: In article <27slq5$m...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> m...@pookie.pass.wayne.edu writes:
: >In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
: >Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
: >>
: >>It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
: >>result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
: >>of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
: >>view of womanhood.
: >>
: >
: >Well, it's certainly obvious that precious little critical thinking went into
: >that bit of brilliance! Yeah, and people bashed Nancy Reagan because she was
: >a woman, too, right? I seem to recall a lot of leftists complaining that she
: >was in the loop back then...and she wasn't even elected! Golly.
: >
: It could have had more to do with the fact that Nancy Reagan was a brainless
: simp, adjusting her husband's speaking schedule on the advice of her
: astrologer, lavishly redecorating the White House, wearing designer gowns even
: as her hubby was attacking poverty programs, and other public relations
: gaffes.
Better to take advice from a live asrologer then to have conversations
with the ghost of an ex first lady. I have a question for all the
Hillary experts out there. How long has she been talking to ghosts?
: >
: >Could it be possible, in your constricted universe, that perhaps some people
: >don't want Hillary Clinton making policy, and doing for the US what she did
: >for Arkansas?
: >
: >--mike
: >
: >
Jim Halat
> >You really are a piece of work, Aaron. "excuses for Mrs. Clinton's
> >lack of absolute worship by the public" What a hoot! You really can't
> >stand the fact that a bright, articulate, liberal, feminist, female
> >lawyer is in a position of that kind of power, can you?
> Are you really that full of ressentment and anger at other men that
> you are so blind to the fact that you have just proved my point.
You have no point, Aaron
> In you own words you accuse me of not being able to stand her because
> of "the usual list of bullshit." What I can't stand is _her politics_,
> not her gender. THat's a difference you male feminist robots can't
> understand. I and many other don't care for her politics.
Why is *the usual list of bullshit* in quotes, Aaron. I didn't say
that and putting it in quotes implies I did. Sure, but her politics
are similar to most of the men in the administration, elected and
unelected. Yet, I hear precious little about the men from you, just
'ol Hillary. Why is that, Aaron? Hm?
> If you really respected her you would use the name she prefers and not
> Mrs. Clinton. The whole point of my posts was that male feminists
> like youself resort to gender bigotry when people do not agree with
> your opinion of Mrs. Clinton.
You are the one who calls her Mrs. Clinton. Not me. Hm. Now you seem
to own the rules on names and respect, too. What a *wealth* of bogus
information you are!
> > > You act like Mrs. Clinton is the only strong women who ever lived.
> > > It is an insult to women to pretend such a thing. Oh I know she
> > > is the first American socialist type that you see as worthy of
> > > being called a strong women. But be advised thoughout history
> > > their have been many, many, many, strong and worthy women. Women
> > > of courage and honor that would put Mrs. Clinton to shame. Shame
> > > on you for not recognizing that fact.
> >
> >Oh, good lord! Calm down. Your mind is runnign three shifts around
> >the clock to manufacture this drivel.
> Hardly drival my male feminist. In that one paragraph I made more
> positve references to women then you have in many a post. Note that
> I recognize the there are many strong women of courage and honor.
> You on the other hand, in you posts, see women as the victims of men.
> Women are much much more than only victims. But where would feminism
> be without victims.
> I am getting tired of you.
Then stop responding.
Jacqueline U. Robertson
>
>f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) wrote:
>
>>Jacqueline U. Robertson (j...@cs.umbc.edu) wrote:
>>
>>: I think it's fairly obvious that the spouse of the president will wield
>>: influence... How many married people are willing to say that their spouse
>>: does NOT influence them ?
>>
>>Don't you then agree that when electing a president the amount and
>>type of influence his/her spouse has is a legitimate issue in the campaign.
>
You got the attribution backwards - PLEASE do not misquote what I post here -
I can get flamed plenty on what I say without having to get flamed on
responses to what I say.....
Thanks,
James A. Robertson
<Standard Disclaimers>
Chris Holt
>Jim Halat <ha...@panther.bear.com> wrote:
>>Trust me, Aaron, I do not feel inferior to you in any way shape or form.
>Of course you do, why else would you be so resentful towards successful
>men or white hetrosexuals to be exact?
Hello? Is there anybody in there? Hello?
>Explain oh holy, rightous and moral feminist male, how in one post you can
>deny that "all men are rapists and that is all they are" is not a theme of
>feminism. Then in the next one suggesting that "Men need to be taught not
>to rape". That associates the act of rape with the gender male and not
>with the criminal. Jimbo, it is criminals who rape not the gender male.
>Get your story straight, either you believe all men are rapists or you
>don't. ( I replied to that other post also, Mr. Gender Bigot. )
I deny that "all people are murderers and that is all they are".
I also suggest that "People need to be taught not to murder".
Is there a problem?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Science, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Bear of Very Little Brain and long proofs Bother Me.
Mark Sobolewski
>I deny that "all people are murderers and that is all they are".
>I also suggest that "People need to be taught not to murder".
>Is there a problem?
EEEEK! I AGREE with Chris. Roll out the barrel!
I dunno, but after elementary and high school (and increasingly, college),
I am a firm believer that people on average tend to be irrational and
irresponsible unless taught otherwise.
I would LOVE to see Chris argue about the lessons such as "to pay one's way",
"not to use children for financial gain and support" etc. but he doesn't
seem to mind when women commit these acts against men.
When morality is so relative, it should surprise noone that such crimes
as murder and rape continue to exist despite our technological advancements.
Morality is defined by what one can get away with. And Chris and the
feminists seem to pave the way for that sort of logic.
It's the road they are doomed to travel. (Yes, I know that sounds poetic.
I didn't intend for it to come out that way...)
--
Mark Sobolewski sobl...@cs.psu.edu
D F Russell
|> In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
|> Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
|>
|> |It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
|> |result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
|> |of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
|> |view of womanhood.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe a lot of people don't care for her
rather typical left wing liberal bullshit? Think a bit.
If she were a male, she would get dumped on just the same way -- probably
even more.
|>
|> You make a statement like the above, and then have the nerve to call other
|> people bigotted. It's pretty obvious that you have no familiarity with
|> critical thinking, or thinking in general fro that matter.
|> --
|> Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
|> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
|> Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
|> Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
DFRussell
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiger! Tiger! burning bright, In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye, could frame thy fearful symmetry?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Neither IBM, AGS, or NYNEX are responsible for my views.
Barry van Brunt
:>
:>It could have had more to do with the fact that Nancy Reagan was a brainless
:>simp, adjusting her husband's speaking schedule on the advice of her
:>astrologer, lavishly redecorating the White House, wearing designer gowns even
:>as her hubby was attacking poverty programs, and other public relations
:>gaffes.
Just which poverty programs did Reagan attack? Please list below:
1)
2)
3)
D F Russell
>> > It is an insult to women to pretend such a thing. Oh I know she
>> > is the first American socialist type that you see as worthy of
>> > being called a strong women. But be advised thoughout history
>> > their have been many, many, many, strong and worthy women. Women
>> > of courage and honor that would put Mrs. Clinton to shame. Shame
>> > on you for not recognizing that fact.
>>
>>Oh, good lord! Calm down. Your mind is runnign three shifts around
>>the clock to manufacture this drivel.
>Hardly drival my male feminist. In that one paragraph I made more
>positve references to women then you have in many a post. Note that
>I recognize the there are many strong women of courage and honor.
>You on the other hand, in you posts, see women as the victims of men.
>Women are much much more than only victims. But where would feminism
>be without victims.
>
>I am getting tired of you.
>
>starbuck
I believe that you are giving jim too much credit. Given much of his
rhetoric, he probably likes women less than he likes heterosexual men.
He, at least, has some use for men.
Jim likes being a "male feminist" -- he get's to bash two groups of
people that he doesn't like. It's what is normally referred to as a
no-lose-situation.
Any woman that reads any of jim's postings *should* recall that he is
a gay male and ask herself one question -- why is jim such a staunch
proponent of his views on feminism?
Dave Bernard
In article <CDv9H...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
|> In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
|> Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
|>
|> |It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
|> |result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
|> |of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
|> |view of womanhood.
Too bad that woman came into a position of 'power', not through election
or popular mandate, but only through the man she married. I can think
of women who ascended to power directly, and who might be better
candidates for your flag-waving than one who ascended to political hack-dom
and became a bureaucrat on the shoulders of her hubby.
Barry van Brunt
:> (rest of post deleted)
:> whereas Mrs. Reagan was
:>merely a former socialite, who was getting many of recommendations from
:>an astrologer, of all people.
This is a bit misleading... N Reagan admitted to consulting an astrologer (regarding her husband's travel schedule) after the assasination attempt in 1981. Apparently, an astrologer told N Reagan that if she had consulted an astrologer on the day of the attempt on R Reagan's life, the incident could have been avoided. Nancy, understandably distraught, accepted the advise for several months.
:>In my mind, that makes Mrs. Clinton a considerably more qualified adviser.
Hillary, on the other hand, has said she seeks the advise regularly from the ghost of
Eleanor Roosevelt.
Barry
B W Moll
>In article <CDv9H...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>|> In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
>|> Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>|>
>|> |It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
>|> |result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
>|> |of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
>|> |view of womanhood.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that maybe a lot of people don't care for her
>rather typical left wing liberal bullshit? Think a bit.
>
>If she were a male, she would get dumped on just the same way -- probably
>even more.
If she were a male, we would never have heard of him, since Clinton is *probably*
not a homosexual.
Regards-
Brent-
---
disclaimer: The views represented here are my own. Any similarity
between my views and the views of my employer is purely coincidence.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind
is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-- Dan Quayle
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent W. Moll Internet o...@mahler.ctd.ornl.gov
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge TN Phone: 615-574-6335 (USA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Woodard
>In article <CDv9H...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>|> In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
>|> Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>|>
>|> |It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
>|> |result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
>|> |of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
>|> |view of womanhood.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that maybe a lot of people don't care for her
>rather typical left wing liberal bullshit? Think a bit.
>
>If she were a male, she would get dumped on just the same way -- probably
>even more.
>
Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
competent and more politically astute than Bill. That's what has them shaking
in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
>|>
>|> You make a statement like the above, and then have the nerve to call other
>|> people bigotted. It's pretty obvious that you have no familiarity with
>|> critical thinking, or thinking in general fro that matter.
>|> --
>|> Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
>|> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
>|> Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
>|> Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>
>DFRussell
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tiger! Tiger! burning bright, In the forests of the night,
>What immortal hand or eye, could frame thy fearful symmetry?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: Neither IBM, AGS, or NYNEX are responsible for my views.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If men menstruated, Kotex would be free.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Bernard
>competent and more politically astute than Bill. That's what has them shaking
>in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
>enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
>most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
"Extremely competent?" Dunno, maybe she is, even if she took more than
twice as long to deliver a package than she originally promissed, and
we're still lacking serious detail. But let's explore that... how are
we supposed to know whether she's extremely competent? She apparently
lacks the confidence to have public press conferences, to appear in
debates or on talk shows. She is often shown delivering
speeches in her widely-spaced word
flinging manner.
I'd say the jury is out on her competence, and that the proof is in
the pudding. But I'd agree that the thing that has people scared is
that she might be an extremely competent woman... because someone
who is competent in espousing the spread of socialism, dependency of
the underclass, the growth of government, and policies that will
hurt the country economically, have me trembling in my boots.
Terri Buchman
rus...@g56dfr.raleigh.ibm.com writes:
>Any woman that reads any of jim's postings *should* recall that he is
>a gay male and ask herself one question -- why is jim such a staunch
>proponent of his views on feminism?
Because he believes that individual men and women should be valued and
respected as human beings. What does being hetero or homosexual have to
do with it? Could it be that Jim's stands are somehow threatening to you
solely because he is gay?
TerriB.
hill...@msc.cornell.edu
>
> Hillary, on the other hand, has said she seeks the advise regularly
>from the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
?????
Where did that info come from?
SEH
B W Moll
If she is more politically astute than Bill, then why didn't the Democrats
nominate her?
B W Moll
I understand that she also makes a lot of long distance calls to East Lansing, MI.
where Elvis is her advisor on nutrition and health issues.
Barry van Brunt
:>> Hillary, on the other hand, has said she seeks the advise regularly
:>
:>?????
:>Where did that info come from?
:>
:>SEH
From remarks she had made during a speech to an east coast women's group last
spring. Rush Limbaugh aired the film clip on tv, and there was passing mention
made on several panel discussion programs the following weekend.
Obviously Hillary's remarks did not receive nearly as much attention as did Nancy
and her astrologer.
Mark O. Wilson
| Well from all these arguments about Hillary it appears that Americans are not comfortable with a woman in a position to wield political power. I guess that's why they say that it will be a long time before there is a woman president in the U.S.
| From my point of view, Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman, who is definitely a major reason for Bill Clinton's rise to power. She is extremely intelligent, and I think that Americans should be glad that there is there is someone extremely intelligent behind the president, and not some airbag.
|And remember this is from a Canadian.
Actually this was from an idiot.
Tell me just when did you develop the ability to read minds.
Out of all of the possible reasons to oppose what Ms. Clinton has
been up to, you pick one and then declare that this is the reason that
I opposed her.
Are you know going to tell me that the reason I oppose Mr. Clinton is
because he is a man?
Mark O. Wilson
|f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) wrote:
|>Jacqueline U. Robertson (j...@cs.umbc.edu) wrote:
|>
|>: I think it's fairly obvious that the spouse of the president will wield
|>: influence... How many married people are willing to say that their spouse
|>: does NOT influence them ?
|>
|>Don't you then agree that when electing a president the amount and
|>type of influence his/her spouse has is a legitimate issue in the campaign.
|Not really -- no more so, at any rate, than the amount and type of
|influence his campaign manager or any other person has. No one, as
|I recall, ever complained about the amount of influence James Baker
|wielded over George Bush, for example.
When there is a disagreement, Baker can be fired.
timothy shimeall
Chris Woodard <woo...@figment.tmc.edu> wrote:
>Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
>competent and more politically astute than Bill. That's what has them shaking
>in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
>enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
>most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
>
a "shadow government" -- unelected, uncontrolled (except by what Bill
can conceal) and influential. The whole health care plan, complete
with details that Hillary "hasn't told Bill yet" is a pretty clear
vision of what people are afraid of. If she had been elected
president, people would be JUST as reluctant to have a "shadow
government" headed by Bill as they are of the one seeming headed by
Hillary.
...
>If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
(just as they do now)
If men are so dominant, why is breast cancer research funded at a
level so much higher than prostrate cancer, when prostrate cancer
kills more men than breast cancer kills women?
Tim
Keith W Ammann
>In <91...@cup.portal.com> Pros...@cup.portal.com (Keith W Ammann) writes:
>
>|f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) wrote:
>|
>|>Don't you then agree that when electing a president the amount and
>|>type of influence his/her spouse has is a legitimate issue in the campaign.
>|
>|Not really -- no more so, at any rate, than the amount and type of
>|influence his campaign manager or any other person has. No one, as
>|I recall, ever complained about the amount of influence James Baker
>|wielded over George Bush, for example.
>
>When there is a disagreement, Baker can be fired.
By the time someone has to be fired, that person no longer has influence
over the person firing him. The act of firing implies the influence has
come to an end. When there is a disagreement, Mrs. Clinton can be told
to butt out. For that matter, as long as she holds a government job (e.g.
health care task force), she too can be fired.
"But Clinton would never fire his own wife!"
But Bush would never fire his most trusted advisor.
We can bandy hypotheticals into the wee hours.
RI...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Woodard) says:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-If men menstruated, Kotex would be free.
-If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, and if men had facial hair, then shaving razors would be free.
Which planet did you say you live on? :-)
Roit Parikh
Nosy
< By the time someone has to be fired, that person no longer has influence
< over the person firing him. The act of firing implies the influence has
< come to an end. When there is a disagreement, Mrs. Clinton can be told
< to butt out. For that matter, as long as she holds a government job (e.g.
< health care task force), she too can be fired.
If she actually holds a government job, the Clinton
administration is violating Federal law.
Not that anyone seems to really care.
D F Russell
|> In article <CE0M7...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> rus...@g56dfr.raleigh.ibm.com (D F Russell) writes:
|> >In article <CDv9H...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
|> >|> In article <1993Sep21....@k12.ucs.umass.edu>,
|> >|> Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
|> >|>
|> >|> |It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
|> >|> |result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
|> >|> |of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
|> >|> |view of womanhood.
|> >
|> >Did it ever occur to you that maybe a lot of people don't care for her
|> >rather typical left wing liberal bullshit? Think a bit.
|> >
|> >If she were a male, she would get dumped on just the same way -- probably
|> >even more.
|> >
|>
|> Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
|> competent and more politically astute than Bill. That's what has them shaking
Actually, most conservatives would agree with you about the part that she
is "more polically astute than Bill". That's one of their complaints about
BIll.
As for "extremely competent" -- well, I suppose if you compare her to some
of the other Clinton team members -- you have a point. Just remember, not
everyone has the same standards.
|> in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
|> enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
|> most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
|>
Get a grip. Another weinie complaining about someone you "could name".
|> >|>
|> >|> You make a statement like the above, and then have the nerve to call other
|> >|> people bigotted. It's pretty obvious that you have no familiarity with
|> >|> critical thinking, or thinking in general fro that matter.
Hey shit-for-brains, where have I called *ANYONE* bigoted?
All *YOU* have done up to this point is run-at-the-mouth. Or don't you read
what you write?
|> >|> --
|> >|> Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
|> >|> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
|> >|> Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
|> >|> Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
|> >
|> >DFRussell
|> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >Tiger! Tiger! burning bright, In the forests of the night,
|> >What immortal hand or eye, could frame thy fearful symmetry?
|> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >Disclaimer: Neither IBM, AGS, or NYNEX are responsible for my views.
|> >
|>
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|> If men menstruated, Kotex would be free.
|> If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the deal here? You couldn't get a date for the prom because no
one liked your bitchy attitude?
D F Russell
|> In article <CE0oy...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> D F Russell,
|> rus...@g56dfr.raleigh.ibm.com writes:
|>
|> >Any woman that reads any of jim's postings *should* recall that he is
|> >a gay male and ask herself one question -- why is jim such a staunch
|> >proponent of his views on feminism?
|>
|> Because he believes that individual men and women should be valued and
|> respected as human beings. What does being hetero or homosexual have to
Your living in a dream.
Jim has no reason to add anything constructive because he doesn't like
women.
|> do with it? Could it be that Jim's stands are somehow threatening to you
|> solely because he is gay?
=;-) Thanks. I always like it when someone dusts this line off.
Translation: The poor pathetic, frightened homophobe -- *HE* should be pitied.
Use it again, but please, not too soon. The novelty wears off.
|>
|> TerriB.
Once again, thanks. This was one of the more amusing letters I have
read in a while.
Sincerely,
B W Moll
She is not. She was appointed to chair the health care commission by the
President, just like any private citizen can be. It just happens (sic) that
the President is her husband. She could be fired by the President just like
any other appointee. In retribution, however, she could cut him off in the
sack.
Terri Buchman
rus...@g56dfr.raleigh.ibm.com writes:
>Jim has no reason to add anything constructive because he doesn't like
>women.
Dear Sir:
You are a moron. Your logic assumes that gays have no connection with
women whatsoever and that they have no interest in helping women achieve
a more equal position in society. I got news for you, gay people have
mothers, sisters, daughters, friends and coworkers of the female
persuasion. They are not sexually interested in women, but that hardly
means that they are completely cut off and separate from the world of
women.
Are you seriously suggesting to me that a gay man:
With a sister with breast cancer wouldn't care about the federal funds
and how much has gone into research and how the treatments are being
rendered?
Worry about the availability of elder care services for an aging mother?
Care about whether or not a daugher is being given a quality education?
Share concerns with a coworker who might think that she is being denied
career opportunities solely on the basis of gender?
As a married, heterosexual woman with 2 kids, I feel that you and your
kind of repressive, biased views are more of a threat to my family than
Jim is. Your kind of wink, wink, nod, nod way of assuming that "everyone
knows that homos hate women" argument would be scary if it were not too
stupid to believe.
>|> do with it? Could it be that Jim's stands are somehow threatening to
you
>|> solely because he is gay?
>=;-) Thanks. I always like it when someone dusts this line off.
>Translation: The poor pathetic, frightened homophobe -- *HE* should be
pitied.
>Use it again, but please, not too soon. The novelty wears off.
Hey, not problem. After all if the shoe fits.... (And in this case, the
fit is perfect.)
TerriB.
Tom Albrecht
>You really are a piece of work, Aaron. "excuses for Mrs. Clinton's
>lack of absolute worship by the public" What a hoot! You really can't
>stand the fact that a bright, articulate, liberal, feminist, female
>lawyer is in a position of that kind of power, can you?
It wouldn't be so bad if she had *earned* her position. But she was never
elected nor appointed to anything. She just happened to be (one of) Bill's
bedfellows.
It's a case of not what you know but who you know. Percisely what are her
credentials that make her well-qualified to revamp our health care system?
--
Tom Albrecht "I have learned for myself that
Presbyterianism is not true."
- Joseph Smith, Jr.
Teneyck Aric
: < health care task force), she too can be fired.
: If she actually holds a government job, the Clinton
: administration is violating Federal law.
: Not that anyone seems to really care.
She can hold a job, but she can't be paid for it. (I think)
--You know whose opinions these are and whose they aren't--
craig sivils
>In article <27klnq$b...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> bar...@memory.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>"Hillary" could be the name of Clinton's brother, uncle, good buddy or pet
>>chimp. The fact is she is an UNELECTED POLICY MAKER accountable to no one.
>So were every presidential cabinet member since the constitution was re-written
>I haven't heard anybody complaining about THEM being put their. About their
>policies sure, but never about their right to hold the job. Of course almost
>all of them were male... and the ones that weren't could be discounted as
>'token-females' to make the equal oppurtunity people happy.
>But giving the president's WIFE credit for having a brain? Absolutly not...
>what sort of example will it set for the women of this country? A first lady
>who has a job and abilities of her own? Ridiculous. The first lady is
>supposed to be a good homemaker, buy new silverware, and adopt some worthy
>cause (kinda like miss america).
>Personally I think it's truly pathetic that so many of our first ladies HAVE
>been non-working women. That and the uproar and choice of barbs thrown at
>Hillary show just how backwards certain elements of the country still are.
>--
>Conrad B. Dunkerson -- con...@novalink.com
>Bertrand de Levinwir -- con...@usl.com
Oh my, but if I were to mention in any other discussion that stay-at-home
mommies get bashed I would get a fervent denial. Yet up above we either have
snooty condecending humor or blatent put-downs. I don't like Hillary because
I disagree with her policies. These policies are being implemented with no
accountability. The president is directly accountable, the other cabinet
members are accountable to congress which approved them. Who is she accountable
to? Remeber checks and balances? The tragedy is that if she was half as
qualified as you claim she is, she would have been a shoe in to be confirmed.
I'll have to shutup when She submits herself to the congressional approval
like the rest of the cabinet.
Craig
David Reed
|> I am not sure just what it is that Hillary has done that makes people
|> dislike her quite so much. It seems to me that both Bill and Hillary have
|> to play certain parts and it is fairly hard to know what they actually
|> think, but I myself would not be surprised if they both turned out to
|> be moderates in liberal clothing. If I am wrong, please tell me why.
|>
You ARE wrong. The reason why has to do with the background of the Clinton's.
Hillary's association with various nut groups. Bill's association (Yep! guilt
by association) with people like George McGovern, Lani "Looney" Quanier and
Laura Tyson.
|> A couple of days ago the NYTimes complained that Clinton is not planning to
|> use abortion as a litmus test for non SC appointments.
Gosh! No Litmus test ?! What a shame!
|> However, even Ginzberg
|> has reservations about Roe v Wade (she would probably uphold it, but she
|> seems skeptical of the reasoning). Also, in his acceptance speech,
|> Clinton said that he wanted abortion to be legal, safe and rare. It seems
|> that everyone has forgotten that word `rare'.
|>
|> Don't the Clintons go to Church? I really wonder if they actually are
|> left wing nuts, as some people seem to think they are.
They ARE nuts. The usage of the words "left" and "right" is really not
appropriate. The question concerns the number of freedoms which are now under
attack.
There's left-wing socialism as once in Russia and there's right-wing
socialism as once in Germany. What's the difference which kind of socialists
Billary are?
Loren I. Petrich
>In article <93267.20...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>, <RI...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
: I am not sure just what it is that Hillary has done that makes people
: dislike her quite so much. It seems to me that both Bill and Hillary have
: to play certain parts and it is fairly hard to know what they actually
: think, but I myself would not be surprised if they both turned out to
: be moderates in liberal clothing. If I am wrong, please tell me why.
>You ARE wrong. The reason why has to do with the background of the Clinton's.
>Hillary's association with various nut groups. Bill's association (Yep! guilt
>by association) with people like George McGovern, Lani "Looney" Quanier and
>Laura Tyson.
How are George McGovern, Lani Guinier, and Laura D'Andrea
Tyson nuts???
I know that GM was a peacenik during the Vietnam War and that
LG was rather Borkable, but what about LT?
And I've never heard of Hillary being associated with GM.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/l...@s1.gov
Jason E. Durbin
It's a Rush thang, you wouldn't understand. Congress is a "nut group",
moderates are a "nut group", Democrats are a "nut group", Republicans who
compromise are a "nut group" and even more diabolical than the ACLU. Even
Republican women who are pro-choice are members of a "nut group".
The conservatives are temporarily out and they're hysterical about it. But,
they've become quite adept at twisting reality with sound bites and
invective. Paraphrase from Limbaugh's radio program today: The Clinton
administration -- sincerity and truthfulness are not factors.
As if the conservatives are above that sort of thing.
Those who have bought into the Rush Limbaugh (and now Republican party line)
are trying to intimidate everyone who holds opposing views with a
patronizing, "children, children, chilren how can you be so deluded" front.
I'm not just a bit sick of it.
: --
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <33...@ursa.bear.com> ha...@panther.bear.com (Jim Halat) writes:
|>You really are a piece of work, Aaron. "excuses for Mrs. Clinton's
|>lack of absolute worship by the public" What a hoot! You really can't
|>stand the fact that a bright, articulate, liberal, feminist, female
|>lawyer is in a position of that kind of power, can you?
|It wouldn't be so bad if she had *earned* her position. But she was never
|elected nor appointed to anything. She just happened to be (one of) Bill's
|bedfellows.
|It's a case of not what you know but who you know. Percisely what are her
|credentials that make her well-qualified to revamp our health care system?
We have had as much chance to select any of Clinton's other advisors.
Brad Polant
|> In article j...@suntan.eng.usf.edu, woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
|> :>
|> :>It could have had more to do with the fact that Nancy Reagan was a brainless
|> :>simp, adjusting her husband's speaking schedule on the advice of her
|> :>astrologer, lavishly redecorating the White House, wearing designer gowns even
|> :>as her hubby was attacking poverty programs, and other public relations
|> :>gaffes.
|>
|> Just which poverty programs did Reagan attack? Please list below:
|>
|> 1)
|> 2)
|> 3)
I'll name a few,
ADC, Food stamps, School lunches (remember declaring ketchup a fruit),
Medicade, even a proposed retroactive tax on umemployment compensation.
Not to mention frequent unfunded state mandates and thats just off the
top of my head.
BP
|>
bo...@cos.com
It's a good thing they make we immigrants learn how the government works,
that way at least someone will know.
Yo Craig! A report from a commission is just that - a report. When and if
our elected representatives decide to accept the commissions report it
becomes a Bill (Congressional, not Clinton). After a vote or three it
might even become legislation.
>members are accountable to congress which approved them. Who is she accountable
>to? Remeber checks and balances? The tragedy is that if she was half as
>qualified as you claim she is, she would have been a shoe in to be confirmed.
>I'll have to shutup when She submits herself to the congressional approval
>like the rest of the cabinet.
Not bloody likely, but why should she require congressional approval? Has
she been appointed to a cabinet post (can't be done)? Has she been
nominated to the Supreme Court? Do a little reading son.
> Craig
TOG
Barry van Brunt
:>>>from the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
:>
:>>?????
:>>Where did that info come from?
:>
:>
:>>SEH
:>TOG
Oh, how I wish it was all in my mind.
Hillary's remarks were made at a speech at Wellesly College last spring. Check it out.
Barry
bo...@cos.com
>From article <2873sn$q...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, by bar...@memory.Corp.Sun.COM (Barry van Brunt):
Howard Sullivan
|> In article <CE0M7...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> rus...@g56dfr.raleigh.ibm.com (D F Russell) writes:
|> >In article <CDv9H...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
|> >
|> >Did it ever occur to you that maybe a lot of people don't care for her
|> >rather typical left wing liberal bullshit? Think a bit.
|> >
|> >If she were a male, she would get dumped on just the same way -- probably
|> >even more.
|> >
|>
|> Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
|> competent and more politically astute than Bill.
That isn't speaking too highly of Mizzzz Rodham-Clinton. The average sixth-
grade student is more politically astute that Bill. She hasn't done ANYTHING
to prove that she is competent while her ticket to power has been in office.
|> That's what has them shaking
|> in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
|> enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
|> most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
|>
She doesn't know enough about "family values" to tout anything. She shows her
intelligence that way. On subjects which she has no knowledge, she avoids
them.
--
| Howard Sullivan | Senior Software Analyst |
| Mail Stop CR2101 | Test Engineering Department |
| Intergraph Corp. | hlsu...@ingr.com |
| Huntsville, Alabama 35894-0001 | 205-730-6517 |
bo...@cos.com
They very nearly are free - they get you by the blades :-)
>Roit Parikh
TOG
bo...@cos.com
>In article <93270.19...@cunyvm.cuny.edu>, <RI...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <2876oa$4...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris
>>Woodard) says:
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-If men menstruated, Kotex would be free.
>>-If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sure, and if men had facial hair, then shaving razors would be free.
>>Which planet did you say you live on? :-)
>>Roit Parikh
>You sexist pig! Don't you know that we men have gotten together in our
>annual "Hate All Women" meetings to determine how to further oppress them?
>Don't you know we decided that we can pay for razors just so that they have
>to pay for them, too. (legs, underarms, etc.)
>Let's keep up the good work, men! And, BTW, could we lower the price on
>jock-itch spray?
Try JID.
>;^)
>--
>__ __ ____ ______ ______ __ __ Keith Jackson
>|| // || | || | | || | || || kjac...@cs.tamu.edu
>||<< ||== || || ||==|| formerly:
>|| \\ ||___ |_||_| || || || [(jack...@cs.rpi.edu)]
Joe Bowen
>a "shadow government" -- unelected, uncontrolled (except by what Bill
>can conceal) and influential.
You mean like Oliver North, and the Council on Competativeness.
Except, that the Clinton Health Plan has to be approved by Congress
after an open debate, which the two above policy-making unelected
"shadow governments" listed above did not need to do.
Joe Bowen
not an IBM spokesman
Dave Bernard
Oliver North? Didn't you mean Dan Quayle (who by the way, was elected
by the people, unlike Hillary).
In any event, I thought the Clinton administration was about change-
about making the government responsive to the people again. How does
the idea that a former administration may have been involved in back-room
politics absolve the Clinton administration of doing so???
O.P.P
In article <CE1A5...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, shim...@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
|> In article <2876oa$4...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>,
|> Chris Woodard <woo...@figment.tmc.edu> wrote:
|> >Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
|> >competent and more politically astute than Bill. That's what has them shaking
|> >in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
|> >enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
|> >most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
|> >
|> No, the thing that has people really scared is that she seems to form
|> a "shadow government" -- unelected, uncontrolled (except by what Bill
|> can conceal) and influential. The whole health care plan, complete
|> with details that Hillary "hasn't told Bill yet" is a pretty clear
|> vision of what people are afraid of. If she had been elected
|> president, people would be JUST as reluctant to have a "shadow
|> government" headed by Bill as they are of the one seeming headed by
|> Hillary.
GIVE ME A BREAK! You act like she can decree laws, then say
"So let it be written, so let it be done".
It is not true. Uncontrolled. What do you mean by that? She has
access to THE BUTTON? You just prefer someone to stay at home and
write children's books about the family dog, or get some meaningless
pet project like the "Just say NO" campaign.
Why are you GUYS afraid of someone who is competent?
If you are AFRAID of the health care plan, tell your congressmen to
vote no. Otherwise, quit carping about a shadow goverment. In my mind
Oliver North was running a shadow government, doing what he damn well
pleased in direct opposition to the will of the people (as voted by congress).
And let me guess, you think Oliver North is a hero, right?
O.P.P
Robert Nehls
The way I see it there are a couple of reasons for bashing Hillary:
1. During the election, every time that Hillary's name came up, Bill would
say, what are they attacking her for, I running for election? Then the first
thing that Bill does is select her to head this hugh task force. Now it is
true that she wasn't running for office, but Bill did appoint her to head
the educational task force in Arkansas therefore some people were concerned
about the same thing happening on a national level. As it turns out all of
Hillary's pre-election critics had every right to be critical of her.
2. Why was she selected to head the task force? Was she the best person for
the job? Did she no anything about the healthcare system? Was she selected
simply because she was the presidents wife? If you asnwer these questions
truthfully, you'll discover that she had no business being selected. I'm
not saying anything about her performance, but she should not have been
selected.
3. They held secret meetings. Even when the American people wanted to know
what was going on, she had to be forced to open up the doors. This smacks a
attitude of "You'll take what I give you whether you like it or not!"
4. She parades around all of the sob stories that she can find and has
never offered any inling on how to finance this plan. She is trying to get
legislation passed by using fear instead of intellegence. Comments like the
president saying "You're only a pink slip away from losing your health
care." are nothing but fear tactics. Other comments such as citing the high
cost of Medicare as being a reason for healthcare just after he signed a
budget that raised Medicare by 11% is nothing more than hypocracy.
5. One final last problem that people had with her (I'm sure there are more
but this is long enough) has to do with her changing her name. I know that
this was talked to death when it occured, but I'm trying to point out that
her criticism is not due to her sex, but rather due to her actions. There
is nothing wrong with a wowan keeping her name or hyphenating it now or
before the election. The fact that she was Hillary Clinton before the
election and Hillary Rodham-Clinton turned people off immediately because it
looks like she is willing to do or say anything to get her way. And if she
was willing to do this minor thing in order to win an election, what will
she say or do to get the healthplan passed? Her actions didn't make her
very credible then and they cause doubt to be cast in her direction now.
If you notice, not once did I say that she couldn't do something because
she's a woman. I'm not knocking her sex, intelligence, or her abilities.
But because of the above reasons and others, I don't feel that she should
have been put in charge of the healthcare plan.
--
Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer
rn1...@sage.medtronic.com (612)574-8559
Working Towards Full Life...
These are my views, not my employers.
Darrell Stossell
: f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) wrote:
:
: >Jacqueline U. Robertson (j...@cs.umbc.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: I think it's fairly obvious that the spouse of the president will wield
: >: influence... How many married people are willing to say that their spouse
: >: does NOT influence them ?
: >
: >Don't you then agree that when electing a president the amount and
: >type of influence his/her spouse has is a legitimate issue in the campaign.
:
: Not really -- no more so, at any rate, than the amount and type of
: influence his campaign manager or any other person has. No one, as
: I recall, ever complained about the amount of influence James Baker
: wielded over George Bush, for example.
:
Baker was an appointee and as such had to at least give the appearance
of following conflict of interest and other behavioural rules. Hillary
on the other hand isn't. She also has stated that since she isn't an
appointee of any sort she doesn't have to (and didn't with health care)
follow the rules. Such as holding secret meetings.
: Some people have suggested that it is hypocritical to criticize Nancy
: Reagan for peddling influence but not to criticize Hillary Rodham
: Clinton. I think there are two significant differences here. First,
: Mrs. Clinton is a former lawyer and lobbyist, whereas Mrs. Reagan was
: merely a former socialite, who was getting many of recommendations from
: an astrologer, of all people. In my mind, that makes Mrs. Clinton a
: considerably more qualified adviser.
Unfortunately her track record of results speaks otherwise. I could be
wrong, but in general, Nancy didn't try to set policy. Nancy influenced
dress and dates. Big deal.
Jason E. Durbin
: In article <2876oa$4...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
: |> In article <CE0M7...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> rus...@g56dfr.raleigh.ibm.com (D F Russell) writes:
: |> >In article <CDv9H...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
: |> >
: |> >Did it ever occur to you that maybe a lot of people don't care for her
: |> >rather typical left wing liberal bullshit? Think a bit.
: |> >
: |> >If she were a male, she would get dumped on just the same way -- probably
: |> >even more.
: |> >
: |>
: |> Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
: |> competent and more politically astute than Bill.
: That isn't speaking too highly of Mizzzz Rodham-Clinton. The average sixth-
: grade student is more politically astute that Bill. She hasn't done ANYTHING
: to prove that she is competent while her ticket to power has been in office.
She also hasn't done anything to prove she isn't competent. But your default
assumption is that she is -- provide some proof.
: |> That's what has them shaking
: |> in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
: |> enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
: |> most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
: |>
[Note: the jackboots reference is a bit extreme don't you think?]
: She doesn't know enough about "family values" to tout anything. She shows her
: intelligence that way. On subjects which she has no knowledge, she avoids
: them.
How are we to evaluate how much HC knows about family values (quotes
uncessary)? By your assertion? Second sentence no sense makes. Third
sentence -- so what's new?
Visceral responses are all well and good but how about some examples we can
really sink our teeth into? i.e Hillary molests small chldren, Hillary
throws cutlery and crystal at Bill to get him to do her will (GIFs
required).
: --
: | Howard Sullivan | Senior Software Analyst |
: | Mail Stop CR2101 | Test Engineering Department |
: | Intergraph Corp. | hlsu...@ingr.com |
: | Huntsville, Alabama 35894-0001 | 205-730-6517 |
--
Jason Durbin
(jdu...@netcom.com)
bo...@cos.com
>mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) wrote:
>>In <91...@cup.portal.com> Pros...@cup.portal.com (Keith W Ammann) writes:
>>
>>|f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) wrote:
>>|
>>|>Don't you then agree that when electing a president the amount and
>>|>type of influence his/her spouse has is a legitimate issue in the campaign.
>>|
>>|Not really -- no more so, at any rate, than the amount and type of
>>|influence his campaign manager or any other person has. No one, as
>>|I recall, ever complained about the amount of influence James Baker
>>|wielded over George Bush, for example.
>>
>>When there is a disagreement, Baker can be fired.
>By the time someone has to be fired, that person no longer has influence
>over the person firing him. The act of firing implies the influence has
>come to an end. When there is a disagreement, Mrs. Clinton can be told
>to butt out. For that matter, as long as she holds a government job (e.g.
>health care task force), she too can be fired.
>"But Clinton would never fire his own wife!"
>But Bush would never fire his most trusted advisor.
>We can bandy hypotheticals into the wee hours.
Well isn't that the sole purpose of this group? To dream up situations
that will never occur and then yell about them at the top of your lungs?
I imagine most of the men posting along the lines above are single, or
married to women who really hen peck them. Why do you all assume that
wives spend every waking hour telling their husbands exactly how they
will think and exactly what they will do in every given situation?
And then there is Mrs. Clinton's alleged left-leaning policies. Hell,
in this group they would call Ghenghis Khan a socialist!
Oh, but she wanted to hold closed door sessions they cry. I would too
since accomplishing anything in this country with the media breathing
down your neck, publishing half-truths, and reducing everything to a
30 second sound bite is as much responsible for Congressional grid-
lock as senatorial filibusters. For cying out loud, what was delivered
to Congress was a report - a report is not legislation (and if what
comes out of Congress resembles the report, I will be greatly
surprised).
But then I guess at certain stages in life people become easily excited
and rush about like chicken little.
<sigh> .sig files and bumper stickers, pollution is everywhere.
The Old Grouch
Joe Bowen
>>>a "shadow government" -- unelected, uncontrolled (except by what Bill
>>>can conceal) and influential.
>>
>>Except, that the Clinton Health Plan has to be approved by Congress
>>after an open debate, which the two above policy-making unelected
>>"shadow governments" listed above did not need to do.
>
>Oliver North? Didn't you mean Dan Quayle (who by the way, was elected
>by the people, unlike Hillary).
I meant Oliver North, and supporting Central American rebels, contrary
to US law - rather uncontrolled, and the Council on Competativeness a
special interest group which had a secure back door to White House policy,
without review or approval or notification to the Congress - sounds pretty
uncontrolled, doesn't it?
>In any event, I thought the Clinton administration was about change-
>about making the government responsive to the people again. How does
>the idea that a former administration may have been involved in back-room
>politics absolve the Clinton administration of doing so???
What bullshit. Plans cannot be submitted to Congress piecemeal. They
have to be complete. This means the working group has to finish the
first draft, and then submit the plan. There is nothing back-room
about it. Now the debate can begin. The debate phase was lost in
both of my examples above.
The reference to previous administrations is to show the hypocrocy of
the criticism of Mr. Clinton. You complain of Mr. Clinton when his
actions are considerably more above board than the people you don't
complain about. The first quote says they are scared by "unelected,
uncontrolled shadow governments". Logic dictates that this poster
should be scared by my examples, but does not seem to be. Perhaps
the poster is not being straightforward.
Joe Bowen
NOT an IBM spokesman
Dave Bernard
>Why are you GUYS afraid of someone who is competent?
Hitler was competent. And I'd be afraid of him. Is competence
the supreme determiner of whether something is desirable?
Moreover, her competence has yet to be proven. The Socialized
Medicine thing she's running is already 6 months late. The
improvement in public schooling committee she ran in Arkansas
was succesful, true, since it does show some level of competence
on her part: she managed to bring the quality of public education
in Arkansas from 50th in the union, all the way up to 49th.
Finally, in her recent hearing before congress, she was served
softballs. She was not challenged or asked tough questions
(nor is she ever, since she refuses to partake in open press
conferences- just announcements)- instead, she was treated like
a bright child. And will probably be taken just as seriously.
Her biggest fawner was Dan Rostenkowski, who will probably suck
up to anybody in the administration now to avoid being indicted.
Dave Bernard
>>In any event, I thought the Clinton administration was about change-
>>about making the government responsive to the people again. How does
>>the idea that a former administration may have been involved in back-room
>>politics absolve the Clinton administration of doing so???
>
>What bullshit. Plans cannot be submitted to Congress piecemeal. They
>have to be complete. This means the working group has to finish the
>first draft, and then submit the plan. There is nothing back-room
>about it. Now the debate can begin. The debate phase was lost in
>both of my examples above.
>
t>he criticism of Mr. Clinton. You complain of Mr. Clinton when his
a.>ctions are considerably more above board than the people you don't
>complain about. The first quote says they are scared by "unelected,
>uncontrolled shadow governments". Logic dictates that this poster
>should be scared by my examples, but does not seem to be.
You make the assumption that because one doesn't care for underhandedness
by Bill that he thinks it is OK for a previous administration. One
does not necessarily believe that. In fact, this one thinks it is
bad in all cases to hold secret meetings. How is this hypocrisy?
How is this illogical?
Because a previous adminsitration did things secretly, it does not
absolve the current one from doing so. Who cares what one does
before submitting something to congress? We're talking about the
American people being included in the process of preparing the
very draft that would be sent to Congress; but the people were not
just not included, they were very deliberately, and by a definite
decision, excluded.
Tony Valle
O.P.P, da...@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain writes:
>Why are you GUYS afraid of someone who is competent?
I assure you -- people who are competent, rational, and open to
discussion are not a source of fear for me. But I'm not certain
that the premises hold in this case.
>If you are AFRAID of the health care plan, tell your congressmen to
>vote no. Otherwise, quit carping about a shadow goverment. In my mind
Would that it were that simple. Despite nationally reported and
verified figures of millions of calls to congressmen running between
75% and 80% AGAINST the budget package, it passed. There is simply
no accountability here and the system has gone out of control.
We may never have had a representative democracy in te past, but
it's CERTAIN we don't have one now.
--Tony Valle
va...@huntsville.sparta.com
Paul S Galvanek
>
>>Why are you GUYS afraid of someone who is competent?
>
Why do you clowns keep insisting she's competent? Are these the words of
person who is "competent" to be making national policy...
" I can't worry about every under capatilized business"
... Perhaps we can see her competence in the fact that she appears before
Congress and answers questions without notes. But then again, how many
notes does one need to give the same answer to every substantive question
asked - ie some variation of - we haven't worked out the details on that
but we'll be happy to get back to you at a later date.
"Us guys," the ones that are critizing her don't always have a problem
with someone who's competent. It's just that, despite the insistance of
certian feminazis, we don't see Hillary as measuring up to that description.
Quite the contrary, whether it's Hillary offering a plan that relies heavily
on "savings in Medicare and Medicaide" that even members of her own party
who support her efforts describe as "pure fantasy" or her out of hand
dismissal of the job losses likely to occur as a result of her plan, every
indication to date is that she's not competent, and should not be involved
to the extent that she is.
The Rooster
--
"People will be hunting Democrats with dogs by the end of the century"
Phil Gramm (when asked what would result if Clinton's proposals were passed)
Why wait for the end of the century, save America, OUTLAW the Democratic Party!
Darrell Stossell
: In article <CE0M7...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> rus...@g56dfr.raleigh.ibm.com (D F Russell) writes:
: >In article <CDv9H...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
: >|> Daniel A. brown <dbr...@k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
: >|>
: >|> |It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the Hillary-Bashing is the
: >|> |result of doltish men who can't handle the fact that a WOMAN is in a position
: >|> |of power and using it. Sorry if she refuses to accommodate your Barbie-Doll
: >|> |view of womanhood.
: >
: >Did it ever occur to you that maybe a lot of people don't care for her
: >rather typical left wing liberal bullshit? Think a bit.
: >
: >If she were a male, she would get dumped on just the same way -- probably
: >even more.
: >
:
: Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
: in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
: enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
: most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
Thank you for informing us as to why we don't like Hillary. Here we
were dumb enough to believe we could understand our own thoughts. God,
er I mean Chris, what do we think about everything else in the
current events arena.
Your post shows the real problem, applying belittling/antagonistic
tags to those you disagree with. This way you don't have to listen
to anything they say and can feel free to tell them what to think, for
now they're subhuman.
David Reed
|> In article <289ea8$2...@newsflash.mitre.org> dbr...@wotan.mitre.org (David Reed) writes:
|>
|> >You ARE wrong. The reason why has to do with the background of the Clinton's.
|> >Hillary's association with various nut groups. Bill's association (Yep! guilt
|> >by association) with people like George McGovern, Lani "Looney" Quanier and
|> >Laura Tyson.
|>
|> How are George McGovern, Lani Guinier, and Laura D'Andrea
|> Tyson nuts???
|>
Oh my! How Indeed?!
|> I know that GM was a peacenik during the Vietnam War and that
|> LG was rather Borkable, but what about LT?
Well, when I look in my dictionary, I find the following entries:
Nut, n., synonym for "kook". see TYSON, LAURA.
Tyson, Laura, one of President Clinton's economic advisors, infamous
for praising the economic policies of the Romanian government; see ROMANIA.
Romania, an country in eastern Europe, impoverished by socialist economic
planning.
Keywords:
Robert Nehls
First off, I believe that it was declared a vegatable not a fruit.
Medicade, Food stamps, and ADC are all "entitlements" that rose during those
evil twelve years. All that Reagan wanted to do was to slow their growth.
He wasn't able to accomplish this and the result was the debt that is blamed
on them for their "massive" military buildup. Remember that even without
any military spending, we would still have a massive debt. Reagan saw this,
tried to stop it, and then got blamed for the debt when he was unable to
curb Congress' spending. He couldn't win with the liberals any way you look
at it.
Ray Frank
>Chris Woodard (woo...@figment.tmc.edu) wrote:
>: Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
>: competent and more politically astute than Bill. That's what has them shaking
>: in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
>: enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
>: most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
Maybe Hillary Clinton doesn`t tout family values because she has no clue what family values are.
She comes from a rich family, went to the best and most expensive colleges, married a politician, and
lived easily everafter. What does she know about the common man and the common struggling family???
In fact, she probably agrees with the Murphy Brown character, ie; be single, get pregnant, and to hell
with a father figure.
And as regards her competence, I could give a shit how competent she is. The point is that she is not
an elected official and yet she is heading the grandest social experiment in American history. She
does not have to answer to the people for anything she does. And I would assume, judging from her
liberal and feminist character, that she doesn`t even answer to her husband, the supposed president of
these here United States.
I regard Hillary Clinton in a most distaste way. How arrogant of her to claim that SHE is going
to redifine for all of us what it means to be a human being throughout the nineties and beyond. Gads,
talk about arrogance and a sense of self importance. And gee, all this time I thought I was doing
pretty good and being a human being, but I guess according to Hilary Clinton, I was just faking it.
ray (Clinton and Gore Four Years No More)
Jym Dyer
>> Where did that info come from?
> women's group last spring.
=v= So what's the problem? I seek advice from the ghost of
Eleanor Roosevelt all the time, as well as the ghosts of Emma
Goldman, Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, and Harvey
Kurtzmann.
=v= Of course I'm speaking metaphorically. Can you say that
word, boys and girls? Met-a-phor-ic-al-ly. C'mon, boys and
girls, you can do it! Mr. Limbaugh, you're not tryyyyying!!!
<_Jym_>
Loren I. Petrich
>In article <1993Oct4.1...@auto-trol.com> dar...@auto-trol.com (Darrell Stossell) writes:
: Chris Woodard (woo...@figment.tmc.edu) wrote:
>
: : Hah. The thing that has people really scared is the fact that she's extremely
: : competent and more politically astute than Bill. That's what has them shaking
: : in their jackboots, the presence of an extremely competent woman who isn't
: : enough of a hypocrite to tout "family values" while being away from her kids
: : most of the time (like a certain ex-vice-presidential spouse I could name).
>Maybe Hillary Clinton doesn`t tout family values because she has no clue what family values are.
What do _you_ think "family values" are???
And it should be clear that both Bill and Hillary love their
daughter Chelsea. Do _you_ love whatever children _you_ have???
>She comes from a rich family, went to the best and most expensive colleges, married a politician, and
>lived easily everafter. What does she know about the common man and the common struggling family???
Y'know, whenever I criticize some overpaid corporate
executives, I get accused of Class Envy by the "family values"
characters. And here you are doing the exact same thing. Shame, shame,
shame. And I may add that she came from a _Republican_ family.
>In fact, she probably agrees with the Murphy Brown character, ie; be single, get pregnant, and to hell
>with a father figure.
But she _has_ stayed married to Bill.
And if _you_ think that it is so _important_ that kids have
father figures, then adopt some.
>And as regards her competence, I could give a shit how competent she is. The point is that she is not
>an elected official and yet she is heading the grandest social experiment in American history. She
She is only doing the legwork in putting together a
nationalized health-care plan. It is NOT the final result; that will
be argued over by Bill and the Congresscritters.
>does not have to answer to the people for anything she does. And I would assume, judging from her
She is not Queen of America; she is only the Prez's wife.
>liberal and feminist character, that she doesn`t even answer to her husband, the supposed president of
What do you consider "liberal" and "feminist"???
>these here United States.
"Doesn't even answer"??? For what reason???
>I regard Hillary Clinton in a most distaste way. How arrogant of her to claim that SHE is going
>to redifine for all of us what it means to be a human being throughout the nineties and beyond. Gads,
Did she _say_ so? Sources, please.
>talk about arrogance and a sense of self importance. And gee, all this time I thought I was doing
>pretty good and being a human being, but I guess according to Hilary Clinton, I was just faking it.
See above.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/l...@s1.gov
David Pickering
[Beginning clipped to save space]
>any military spending, we would still have a massive debt. Reagan saw this,
>tried to stop it, and then got blamed for the debt when he was unable to
>curb Congress' spending. He couldn't win with the liberals any way you look
>at it.
How many times did Reagan veto this spending or have a veto overridden
by Congress? NONE! How many balanced budgets did Reagan and his
hand-picked successor George Bush submit to Congress? NONE!