Hill and Bill–Narcissistic Spoiled Brats

Enough with the Bill and Hill Show. It has gone on almost as much as “Gunsmoke,” and the story lines are getting old. It has surpassed “Law and Order,” despite the fact that it respects neither.

There is no other way to describe these two crybabies any more. They are simply narcissistic spoiled brats. While it is no secret that most of the ’60s kids were contemptible human beings, many of whom are embarrassed at how they used to be, it takes talent to be the worst of this miserable, self absorbed lot.

Hillary Clinton’s newest detraction from what is decent and right in this world comes in the form of a speech she recently made.

“‘It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,’ Clinton told supporters in Concord. ‘So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,’ she added.”



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHK1Uxz_fE  Is Jackie Mason’s perspective.

Time Magazine and CNN, normally in bed with the Clintonistas (resisting the urge to link it to Bill), echo the New York Post sentiments.

This woman is concerned that a terrorist attack will help republicans at the polls. She does not express concern for possible dead human beings. She expresses concern for her chances of achieving power. She brings up her husband’s strengths. This weakness of being unable to care for those outside of themselves is shared by Bill in abundance.

Bill Clinton went into a rage when historians ranked him as an average president. He was ranked # 5 on the economy, but second to last (above Nixon) in terms of morality. The top two presidents swap between Lincoln and Washington. FDR and Thomas Jefferson are either third or fourth, with JFK and Ronald Reagan alternating 5th and 6th. President George Herbert Walker Bush is also ranked as an average president, smack dab in the middle, one spot above Bill Clinton. Yet President Bush Senior does not seem outwardly bothered by this. He is a man at peace.

When George W. Bush is asked about his place in history, he responds, “I don’t care. We’ll all be dead by then.” What is it about Bill and Hill that they have to repeatedly announce to the world how fabulous they are? I am not a psychologist, and have no interest in analyzing them. I just want them to be quiet, and take the Clintonistas with them. I want them to stop taking credit for good things that had nothing to do with them, and for once in their lives take responsibility for the mistakes they made.

Particularly galling is Bill Clinton telling people that if only he did not have the misfortune of being president during peace time, people would realize how great he was. It was unfair to him that The Cold War ended before he was elected and 9/11 happened after he had left office.

Does anybody think that Abraham Lincoln wanted the Civil War to boost his popularity? Ronald Reagan did not ask for the Cold War. He simply won it. He did his job. Bill Clinton liked being President. Being and doing are not the same. It was not that there were a lack of things to do. It was that he lacked the will, courage and character to actually do them.

George W. Bush has low poll ratings. He doesn’t care. He is busy making history. He does not have time while on the job to reflect on what other people could do to like him more. Many people are angry with him. So what? He is not hear to be my buddy. I am not friends with my bosses, teachers, or parents. They have a job to do, and I want results, not hugs.

If only 9/11 had happened on the Clinton watch, he could have shown us his mettle.

Does anybody who does not need to be institutionalized thing President Bush wanted 9/11 to happen? Does anybody with any sense of sanity think that Bush supporters wanted 9/11?

This is what separates the left from the right. The left will say anything, do anything, and hurt anybody to get power for the sake of power. They will burn villages to then create them. Ask Bush supporters a hypothetical question. If God came to them, and promised to reverse 9/11, and bring those people back to life, would they be willing to have Al Gore and John Kerry as President in exchange? Absolutely!

Yes, I would be willing to pay higher taxes, be more regulated, and think my President was wrong about everything in exchange for 3000 less dead Americans. I value human life. I voted for President Bush twice with zero regrets. I believe he is the best man to continue the War on Terror. The democrats running in 2008 are more outraged at him than they are at Al Queda. How do we know this? They tell us.

Bill and Hill are the king and queen of government by polling. Winning an election is a popularity contest. It is a way to scream “People like me,” and validate them. When Bill was Governor, and then President, he was no longer the fat kid who could not get a date. He was powerful and important. Hillary is no longer the geek with the coke bottle glasses. She is now important, and everyone must know that.

This is not about left vs right, or even republican vs democrat. Many democrats have conducted themselves with dignity, even in defeat. Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and George McGovern were seen as wrong, but they were seen as decent men of integrity that were beaten by superior opponents at that time.

Today there are plenty of democrats that are able to communicate ideas without seeming phony and self absorbed. From Harold Ford to Joe Biden (although he could be an alternative fuel given how wind powered he is), there are those in the democratic party that actually offer solutions with a touch of realism.

Bill and Hill either fail to understand, or deliberately ignore, that most people do not see 9/11 in terms of how it affects elections. We see 9/11 as a horror of burning buildings, dead plane passengers, holes in the ground in New York, Pennsylvania and DC, and brave firefighters, police officers and EMTs.

It is ironic that despite fiercely criticizing the Bush Doctrine, Hillary Clinton is the queen of preemptive first strikes when it comes to politics. By accusing the republicans of politicizing the War on Terror by merely mentioning it, she can shift the ground to health care and other topics.

Sorry Hillary. You do not get to decide what Americans care about. Yes, the War on Terror is a winning issue of republicans. Yes, another attack could help republicans at the polls. We don’t care. We would never want another 9/11, and we are working to try and stop it while you play games.

The real issue is that instead of democrats, and Hillary in particular, complaining that they are seen as soft on terror, instead of complaining about fictional republican tactics, perhaps they should just actually be better on the issue.

Stereotypes are not born out of thin air. Reputations do not exist in a vacuum. Bill and Hill are the excesses of the ’60s personified. They have virtue, the republicans are their enemy, and are only vice. The vast right wing conspiracy will do anything to win elections, including deliberately causing another 9/11, or at least hoping for one.

Or perhaps Hillary prays for another 9/11 as soon as possible so she has something else to blame President Bush for. Farfetched? It is no worse a train of thought that her vile musings.

Bill and Hill need to grow up, and somehow find a way to stop being the narcissistic spoiled brats that they have always been. Or better yet, rather than go away mad, they can just go away. Somebody give them their bottles. The adults have work to do preventing the next 9/11, rather than worrying about how it affects their place in history.

Hillary Clinton wrote “Living History,” but she is not living it. She and her husband are doing what they always do…talking about it. Reagan created some significant history, and George W. Bush has done so as well. That is what doers, by definition, actually do.

Bill and Hill do not do. They be. Now if only they would leave America and its many productive citizens be so that we can get back to doing.


35 Responses to “Hill and Bill–Narcissistic Spoiled Brats”

  1. itsmecarole says:

    [Hey…In order to comment on another’s blog I had to create an account…so it’s just me….the same ole’ Carole.]

    You know…all that you said…it’s just crystal clear to you, isn’t it? It is so clear, you can’t believe anyone falls for either of them at all, can you? That was exactly my reaction to Mr. Clinton. It was as clear to me as if he was wearing a sign that said ‘I am an empty shell with no substance or meaning’ and I just knew…KNEW that everyone else saw it too. But, NOOOOO.

    And with the Mrs.? We’re talking a visceral reaction! I cannot bear to have to look at her….and to have to hear her is even worse. And exactly what you quoted tells it all! She’s NOT EVEN TRYING TO HIDE what she’s really about. And yet…people are STILL falling for it!

    It is people like the Clintons that make me believe there is a satan that people sell their souls to for personal gain. I would not be suprised at all to find out that the both of them have done exactly that. What that means about the people that are sucked in by them I can’t imagine….

    All I know is….you are RIGHT to pray, eric. We are all praying…because God’s got the conquering evil thing down. We can only pray that He will have mercy on America long enough to give us a victory over evil one…more…time…

  2. micky2 says:

    The whole time I was reading this post I couldnt help but think of the mentality out there that has let the two of them get this far.
    Billary is only too aware of this bunch and are milking it to the max, and playing their hand counting on this kind of thinking
    Heres a cut and paste of a comment that kept going through my mind as I read Erics post.
    Pay close attention to the last sentence

    “As far as Clinton, people who like him excuse his indiscretions, and people who hate him view him as a criminal. I think it was Chris Rock who said, though, that there was something comforting about Clinton’s con artistry – he lied to us with a twinkle in his eye, and we didn’t mind the lie so much because on some level, he was acknowledging that he was a liar and a con man. The scary thing with Bush and the neocons, or with Reagan and his cronies, is that they can lie while believing that they are still right. They don’t let you in on the lie the way Clinton did. Maybe I’m explaining it poorly, but sometimes there’s a lot of truth in humor. I’m definitely more comfortable with a con man than I am with a Crusader.”

    With a twinkle in his eye !?

  3. Sanity102 says:

    The lie: I am a Conservative and a supporter of Reagan…but join my LIBERAL counterpart to blame Bush and all things GOP and BREAK the 11th commandment of not badmouthing Republicans.

    Rock is right…the Independent voters that are neither extremely Right OR Left feel more comfortable with the conman than the crusader…to the one that doesn’t pretend to have principles rather than the one whose principles do not include “loyalty” and “support”.

    And unfortunately for the GOP and the nation…it is the Independent that will decide who fights the WOT in 2009.

  4. micky2 says:

    As a result of maturity there is more movement from the left to the right. Rarely does a mature one on the right go left. The older left that remains today are clingons from the sixties. The majority of the left today will elect a non substantial liberal candidate as a statement to their standing rather than to elect a candidate who can do the job. Even if the most viable candidate is a crusader.
    It doesn’t matter if human life is at stake. What’s important is that the conman wins, at all cost’s.

  5. arclightzero says:

    I have always wondered why people like Bill and Hillary are not at peace with their own selves. It seems to be a common flaw amongst the left. Very child-like; always having to compare and one-up everybody… And god help them when they feel like they’ve been short changed by life. Just look at the great “humanitarian” Mr. Jimmy Carter. Have you ever seen such sour grapes from one man? Bill and Hillary seem to be aspiring to that level, which is really sad. Bill may not have been a good man, but he was on ok president. He should be ok with that. Yet, he’s not. He’s bitter and he’s angry and now he wishes that he had had an opportunity to prove his mettle on the world stage.

    Well ya know what, Bill? You didn’t. Live with it. Be ok with that. You did an average and adequate job of running this country for eight years and were able to walk away from it in one piece, which is all anybody can really hope for. If this drive by Hillary is just an attempt for Bill to vicariously run the White House again and prove something to himself or the rest of the world, it would be a very sorry disappointment.

  6. Lord Nazh© says:

    Great post!

    About the only thing I actually wonder in this circus of a Presidential primary season is when the Democrats will realize that W isn’t running against them. ;)

  7. I don’t even know where to begin with this, so let’s just start at the start…

    “Enough with the Bill and Hill Show.”

    I actually agree with this. Bill Clinton’s term ended 6 1/2 years ago. It really is time to “move on.” And the Dems are making a huge mistake if they believe Hillary can win the nationals. She can’t. Through no particular fault of her own, she’s an extremely divisive figure. Her negatices are just too high. Obama can’t win either. I’d swear the Dems want to lose.

    “…most of the ’60s kids were contemptible human beings,…”

    First of all, calling kids “contemptable human beings” is pretty lowly. Kids are kids. Secondly, “most” of the 60’s kids were just regular folks, just as most of the kids today are. You must not know very much about modern history if you believe otherwise. The “hippies” and such were actually a pretty small minority.


    This is another canard. The Clintons are not communists or socialists. They are pretty mainstream, Baby Boomer, Big “D” democrats. That whole insipid “ista” thing is the perfect example of the irrational hatred of the Clintons. By First World standards, the Clintons are Centrists.

    “Ronald Reagan did not ask for the Cold War. He simply won it.”

    Ah yes, yet another silly myth of the silly Right in their silly comic book universe. Riiiiiight… Ronald Reagan personally tore down “that wall” and defeated the “Evil Empire” (a comic book term if there ever was one!) with his Super Rhetoric Breath! This is just plain juvenile epistemology in action. The USSR was a big poor country dominating a bunch of small poor countries. It went broke. It was bound to happen. It has happened to Russia several times before. Try reading about it.

    “This is what separates the left from the right. The left will say anything, do anything, and hurt anybody to get power for the sake of power.”

    Again, more silly, juvenile, partisanship. The Left, for whatever you think of them, are probably a lot less power-hungry and egalitarian then the Right. But all in all, politicians are what they are. To place all that vitriol on one side or the other is just plain foolish and naive.

    How old are you, Eric???


  8. I meant to say “more egalitarian…”


  9. William Hampton says:

    Hillary Rotten Clinton is worse than Slick Willy…at least everyone knew where he was coming from. Hillary Rotten Clinton …I have no clue about her motives. Correction ..I do know. She will say or do anything to get elected. Including blast America and our warriors.

  10. Do you really have an example of Hillary “blast(ing) America are our warriors”? Really? Or is Hillary just an uppity woman and you’re just an insecure guy? (My guess would be the latter…)


  11. micky2 says:

    Besides all the factual and opinionated commentary, does anyone really want to listen to that voice for 4 years ?

    And on a more serious note, lets get some fresh meat for candidates, I like George W , but havnt we all had our share of Clintons and Bush’s to last us ?

  12. Gayle says:

    That was a most excellent post, Eric. In answer to your questions: “Does anybody who does not need to be institutionalized think President Bush wanted 9/11 to happen? Does anybody with any sense of sanity think that Bush supporters wanted 9/11?
    Of course not, but the liberals, as evidenced by one of your commentors, seem to be devoid of either. “….or are you just an insecure guy? My guess would be latter…”)
    Jersey’s right about one thing: He’s guessing and he’s wrong.

    Hillary is so glued to the inside of her ivory tower she doesn’t understand how she exposes herself when she says that another attack would help Republicans. How self-centered can the woman get? Well, I don’t expect an answer to that question, Eric. All she cares about is becoming the first woman to be President of the United States. As for her caring about our country and it’s citizens, I’m utterly convinced that doesn’t enter into her one-track mind. With the Clinton it’s all about power and it always has been.

    Why is it that there are nearly two-million pages of documents on Hillary while she was in the White House under lock and key?

  13. William Hampton says:

    Sorry Jersey McJones…I am very secure. Army Vet that served proudly. Raised four fabulous kids, 15 grandchildren…retired, and I do what I want to do, when I want to.

    I love my country, and I think that President Bush is doing and has done a fabulous job !!! He certainly isn’t into pleasing the Liberals. He was elected to do the job of President, and doesn’t care what the polsters say. I say GOOD FOR HIM !!!

    Of course, on Klintoon’s, and the other Liberals…they would suck off an elephant to get elected. Hillary Rotten Klintoon would (will) do ANYTHING to get elected. The poor witch.

  14. micky2 says:

    And her followers will line up right behind her and that elephant. It doesnt matter if she has a clue or not.
    Everything is all about the idea.

    All right ! we have the first female president ever in American history !

    Now what do we do ?


  15. Jersey McJones says:

    For a man with your history, Mr Hampton, your adolescent worldview is surprising. If you think the GOP is any less powerhungry than the Dems, then you are truly blinded by partisanship. I’m not a Dem, and I’m not a GOPer. I know better. I’m sorry, but yes, your assessment of Hillary Cliton (I can think of plenty of valid arguments against Hillary) seems petty, misogynist, and simpleminded. You sir, of all people, should be above all that. I hope I’m wrong about ou.

    I agree Mickey insofar as the Dems are truly delluded if they believe that Hillary can win, and it’s quite possible that her historic opportunity, be that as it may, is blinding them to that reality.


  16. itsmecarole says:

    JMJ…to quote you…I don’t even know where to begin.

    First, I gotta wonder. What is this obsession with maturity on your part? Did you know that usually the things we criticize in others are the ones that we don’t like in ourselves?

    Second..dude! Get a grip! This is eric’s blog. He gets to say whatEVER he wants. That’s the beauty of having your own blog! So…big deal if he lets loose and says what he really thinks. It’s a free country…at least for the time being.

    Third….what is wrong with simple? I just don’t get it. It is no mystery about Hillary. She is obvious. That’s pretty simple. And maybe Mr. Hampton was graphic in his description of what she would do to get power. It’s nevertheless a fairly accurate description of how ruthless and consienceless she appears to some of us.

    Fourth….”Through no particular fault of her own, she’s an extremely divisive figure.” Huh? Is there someone holding a gun to her head making her say, do and be who she is? I don’t think so. Contrary to the liberal world view, we are not victims. Aside from genetics, we get to choose who we are, what we do, and what we say. If she is divisive, it is her doing. Fairly simple to me.

    Fifth…Clintonistas…I thought were people who are besotted with the Clintons. Insipid? Canard?

    Sixth…First world? What’s that? Moderate? Okay…if you think so. I think Bill Clinton is an insecure wimp, and the Mrs. is a socialist….and that’s being nice about her. Mainstream? uh….NO.

    Seventh…What’s wrong with saying Reagan won the cold war? He did. Exactly. He helped the Soviet union to get to their own demise quicker. What WAS juvenile epistomology was YOUR exaggerated elaboration of eric’s simple statement. Good grief!

    Finally….”To place all that vitriol on one side or the other is just plain foolish and naive.” The vitriol has been coming from the left since Bush’s first win. I do not hear the hateful, egregious vitriolic attacks on anyone from the right. If anything, the Bush administration – on the right – has been the epitome of dignity under fire, and graciousness to his enemies.

    No offense, but your own responses on this blog expose your own issues, while you are judging everyone else. If you don’t agree, then don’t agree. State your case. But two wrongs don’t make a right. One could easily find your attack to be a perfect example of your accusations.

  17. Jersey McJones says:

    itsmecarole, very clever!

    “Did you know that usually the things we criticize in others are the ones that we don’t like in ourselves?”

    I guess you have me on that one!

    “He gets to say whatEVER he wants.”


    “Third….what is wrong with simple?”

    In and of itself, nothing.

    “Hillary… is obvious. That’s pretty simple.”

    Yes, that’s very simple.

    “If (Hillary) is divisive, it is her doing. Fairly simple to me.”

    Yes. I can tell that it is simple to you.

    “…Clintonistas…I thought were people who are besotted with the Clintons. Insipid? Canard?”

    Oh, okay. Putting that “ista” there on the suffix just means “having to do with” as opposed to “communist,” right? Please.

    “…First world? What’s that? Moderate? Okay…if you think so. I think Bill Clinton is an insecure wimp, and the Mrs. is a socialist….and that’s being nice about her. Mainstream? uh….NO.”

    If you have an example of this I would love to see it.

    “… What’s wrong with saying Reagan won the cold war?”

    It’s stupid. Reagan no more “won the Cold War” than there was a war in the first place. I summed up my opinion of the Cold War above. Can you sum up why you think Reagan “won” it?

    “… I do not hear the hateful, egregious vitriolic attacks on anyone from the right.”

    I’m sorry. I didn’t know you were deaf.

    “If you don’t agree, then don’t agree. State your case.”

    I agree. You should try that.


  18. micky2 says:


    Might I suggest that you stop patronizing people as if you have some elite level of intelligence that is beyond anyones ability to comprehend.
    Really ! You might want to stop, take a step back and look at what your saying.

    You come out the corner with a snotty patronizing looking down your nose attitude at Caroles screen name (” itsmecarole, very clever!”)
    you get some sick joy out beliitling people for insignificant crap like their choice of name.

    Carole stated that she “THINKS” bill Clinton is a wimp. You asked for an example of what she thinks. She doesnt need to show you anything, its what she thinks.

    And as far as my opinion goes and what could vey well be considerd fact.
    If Bill did have any balls he would of bombed the shit out of Bin Laden and Saddam like any leader with one nut would of. And he wouldnt of tried to weasel his way out of an obvious screw up. Instead, the ” WIMP “went and sicked his wife on the right . screaming ” It’s a vast right wing conspiracy!” And the ” WIMP” couldnt take it when Chris Wallace asked him about 911, he went off the deep end instead of answering the question with some dignity.
    Instead , like a “WIMP” he turned it around on Chris.
    I got more “WIMP” stories if you would like more evidence of a man with no real cajones, AKA wimp.
    The cold war was won by Reagan, we had an arms race and we/he out spent them.
    Plain and simple. (Oh ! sorry, forgot you couldnt handle that word ” simple”)

    I sometimes make the same mistakes that you make. You make them very often and justify it.

    Also , You critisize Eric for calling 60s kids contemptable.
    Well , I was one of those kids he is talking about. And we were very contemptable.
    That era had more idiots that didnt have a clue running around full of hate for the “establisment ” just because it was fashionable. And as far as todays kids go. Their knowledge and view of the political arena today is sickening. They prosecute before they have a clue, and that falls right into the description of “contempt”.
    than any generation up untill now.

    Guys like you blow my mind. You dont really commit to one view or the other.
    This allows you to run around and bash everything that doesnt look perfect and you will never have any connection to a mistake, due to your “independent” standing.
    I used to do that, and couldnt handle the confusion and inner struggles any more.
    I choose a team, which means I will stand with and by them if they screw up.

    In my book you are whats called a fair weather friend. You want the best of both sides with no commitment to one or the other.

  19. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, your conservative paranioa is showing! “”itsmecarole, very clever!” was a complimet on the clever take the poster took on the argument. I’m not a little kid who gets laughs out of plays on names. Nice try, though unfortunately typical.

    “If Bill did have any balls he would of bombed the shit out of Bin Laden and Saddam like any leader with one nut would of.”

    Well, let’s see… Reagan could’ve done that. So could have Bush I. Hmmm… If I recall, Cheney himself said that taking out the latter would’ve been a mistake – of course, that was then, huh?

    “The cold war was won by Reagan, we had an arms race and we/he out spent them.
    Plain and simple. (Oh ! sorry, forgot you couldnt handle that word ” simple”)”

    That is a popular and relevent take on the history of the Iron Curtain. But it in no way changes what I said either. The only argument you could make is that Reagan perhaps speeded things up a little. Congrats. Whoop-di-doo. I find the argument weak.

    “Also , You critisize Eric for calling 60s kids contemptable.
    Well , I was one of those kids he is talking about. And we were very contemptable.”

    Yes. I’m sure you were contemptable. I was too, once. Then I grew up. Funny thing though – I was a libertarian when I was a “contemptable” kid.

    “That era had more idiots that didnt have a clue running around full of hate for the “establisment ” just because it was fashionable.”

    Sounds like Reagan! I thought all you cons distrusted government! What happened? Chnaged your mind when you got frighteneed of a few Islamic international organized crime figures? God, you cons are wimps.

    “Guys like you blow my mind. You dont really commit to one view or the other.”

    Only a fool commits to “one view or another.” I’m more realistic, pragmatic, and humble than that.


  20. Carole says:

    Itsmecarole or Carole….what’s in a name! No biggee. Thanks for jumping in, M!

    LOL! After conversing with some of you guys here for a while, I was thinking ‘How civil this is as opposed to other places where the trolls come out to play! Oh well. I guess you just have to take the good with the trolls.

    I don’t know, M….I’m not certain JMJ is a friend. I’m kinda thinkin’ he likes his perch way up there above all of us ‘simple’ folk. Hey! Maybe he can’t help it! Maybe he does have “some elite level of intelligence that is beyond anyones ability to comprehend”…including his own! I know I’m not comprehending it. Perhaps we should be grateful he deigns to bestow some of this incomprehensible intellegence on us…? Well….nah.

    Interesting, JMJ, how you think simple is an insult. I see simple as a gift. ” ‘Tis a gift to be simple, tis a gift to be free..’ and all that. Makes life….simpler.

    And really, simple does not assume the inability to comprehend the complicated. Rather, for me, simple is the ability to distill the complicated to its essence, and therefore be able to act. I see simple as….productive.

    So, I’ll go my merry simple way here, JMJ, and leave the complications to those of you who need it to feel important. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt…and gave it back.

    Oh…and…yeah. To me, ‘ista’ has nothing to do with communism, nor have I ever used Clintonista in that light. That’s to me, again…you know, the simple person. But hey….if the shoe fits….

  21. micky2 says:

    Its a macho chauvinistic thing, I open doors for ladies and stuff. The guy irks me.
    Especially when he agreed with me.

  22. micky2 says:

    JMJ, your last post confirms every observation of you that I made.
    I run into guys like you a lot who think they are ever so smart because they can chop apart any concept or opinion with his own. So it all boils down to this.

    What have you proven?
    Nothing but the fact that you are a pompous jerk who doesnt know any more about anything than the rest of us. But you still sit up there on your high horse and impose insinuations that somehow we are lesser than you because we have our beliefs , opinions and attitudes. You’re screwing with the wrong guy when you assume paranoia on my part. I am definatly not afraid or paranoid of poindexters like you.
    I have lived through everyyhing I speak of. And I did grow up and out of the sixties to leave your kind of mindset behind.
    You present no facts or links or truth to base your claims on, just snotty BS

  23. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, all I was saying was that all this vitriol at Hillary Clinton is misplaced. That’s all. I’m a liberal. I know liberals. Hillary Clinton is no liberal. She’s a mainstream, Baby-Boomer, typical Big-D Demovrat, as I said before. And I seriously doubt she can win a national election. She brings out far too much animosity in far too many people. And it really is through no fault of her own. She never killed anyone. Her possible corruption issues are nominal by today’s standards. She’s not all that liberal. Her healthcare plan from back in ’93-94 was the same sort of privatized boondoggle we see in Medicare Part D, not national single-payor healthcare (if you want proof – look at all the big pharma and insurance campaign money that she and her husband have taken over the years!). My point is simple, really – the hatred of Hillary Clinton seems petty, irrational, misogynistic, and inane. Get me?

    I’m not a troll, just a person who loves a good debate. I was informally invited here, my friend.


  24. arclightzero says:

    Jersey, there is a flaw in your argument. Hillary doesn’t need to kill anyone in order to receive this sort of reaction from people. Hillary is not a good person. You can hear it in the way she speaks, you can tell it from her lack of spine and fortitude, you can pick it up in the way she speaks about others. My distaste for her has nothing to do with the fact that she is a liberal, and I would reckon that is how many of us are. The fact that she is a liberal dem is simply icing on the cake. My issues with her a strictly personal. She makes my skin crawl every time I see or hear her, and that is not somebody that should ever be put into a position of power.

    You may say that the hatred of Hillary seems petty, irrational, misogynistic and inane… But I think that you are letting your “tolerance” cloud your vision. Politics aside, Hillary is simply not a good person. It’s that simple.

  25. Carole says:

    ” My point is simple, really – the hatred of Hillary Clinton seems petty, irrational, misogynistic, and inane.”

    Well done, JMJ. Simple. Distilled down to its essence. AND productive. Now we can respond to your point, and not your own petty, irrational, misogynistic and inane rhetoric.

    And well said arclightzero. Exactly.

    And Micky…”Oh Micky, you’re so fine,
    you’re so fine you blow my mind!
    Hey Micky!
    Hey Micky!

    Have a great day, everyone.

  26. Jersey McJones says:

    Arclightzero, I seriously doubt you know enough about Hillary Clinton to make such a judgement about her character. She seems alright, I suppose. But I don’t know her either. As I said, and for the third time in this thread, she’s a proto-typical Baby Boomer Democrat. Whatever.

    Carole, there’s nothing wrong with making a simple point. There’s something terribly naive about boiling everything down that way.


  27. arclightzero says:

    No, of course I don’t know Hillary. If I had the chance to sit down with her over a cup if jo, maybe I’d have a different opinion of her. But I doubt it. You can learn a lot about somebody by watching their interactions with others. You can watch their face, their gestures, their words… Listen carefully when she speaks, and watch her as she does it. Better yet, watch her when she’s supposed to be listening. She could rival Ted Kennedy for being an overtly bad listener.

    I don’t know what you’re trying to get across by continuing to say that she is a “proto-typical baby boomer democrat.” There is nothing typical about her. As I said, this isn’t a political issue. She could be a conservative and I would still feel the same way about her. If she’s a different person in private, I would think it would be wise of her to sow that face to the country, because the persona she is putting out there right now incites a whole lot of bad feelings.

  28. Carole says:

    McJones….whoever you are. It is difficult to take a person seriously when one feels constantly belittled by that person. I’ve kinda been trying to be humorous to get my point accross…but you insist on judging me, and others. Forgive me, but I’m tired of it. Gloves off.

    If you want debate, then debate. If you’re going to personally attack, don’t expect debate, or for that matter, respect. There are too many bigots in this world, and sadly, you are one of them. All over your comments, you make snap judgements about people to discount their points, or to blast them out of the water. It may be news to you that there are many different VALID ways of dealing with the reality of this world. It is not OUR job to be the Holy Spirit and judge one’s way as right or wrong. We CAN decide for ourselves whether we can respect and use that way or not. The problem with bigots is they think THEIR way is the ONLY way. Thus, we have race problems, class envy promoters , political partisanship and the arrogant elite. All of it is based on ignorance.

    You sir have no idea who I am, nor what I have had to deal with in this world, nor what I have had to overcome to survive. In short, you are too ignorant to judge me. I shudder to think that you interact with the world with your own simplistic – in this case, used as naive – view of people based on your own bigotry. Kindly do NOT lecture me on naive.

    I have always been inspired by the passage in the new testament about the body, and how no one part of the body is better than the other. The writer was talking to a ‘body’ of believers in which there was much unrest about the worth of each’s function. His answer was to compare the people to the human body. It takes the different functions of each part of the body for the whole to function properly. It is this idea that inspires me to ASPIRE to value people for their differences. It helps me. Might help you.

  29. Jersey McJones says:

    Arclightzero, look, you’re certainly not alone. Hillary puts a lot of people off. Some say she’s “shrill,” some say she’s a “used car salesman.” Even my wife doesn’t like her. She says Hillary “just comes off wrong.” Whatever. It’s one thing to find someone a little off-putting. I never liked Bill. But in the end, he made a pretty good president. Nothing great. Nothing new. But pretty good. I would imagine Hillary would be much the same. As for “prototypical baby boomer” – what I mean is that Hillary’s positions are well within the mainstream of that generation.

    Carole, relax. I’m not attacking you. I know you Christians have this deep need to be feel victimized all the time, but really, I am not victimizing you. I just don’t care enough to do that.


  30. Smokin Joe says:

    *cough* Go Obama *cough* *cough*

    And good back-and-forth too.


  31. Smokin Joe says:

    Now that I’ve gone through everyone completely – I have to say, both sides bring up decent points.

    I do have to agree with JMJ in his point where Hillary does bring about a lot of unnecessary and misdirected animosity, whether it is because she’s a woman, because people might mis-interpret her ideas, or because of her last name.

    This is NOT to be confused with those who disagree with her on a Political basis, or perhaps have some sort of animosity caused by her Healthcare reform, or any other reason that is originally based on programs/ideas that involve Hillary.

    And I was thinking – while it is fair to say Reagan hastened the Demise of the Soviet Union, by the same token, JFK would have played an almost equally significant role (as far as the United States was concerned) by motivating our Space Program, which I would have to imagine really started to bankrupt the USSR.

    I mean, there are tons of reasons and events that slowly led to the Communist Nation’s demise – I mean, Pope John Paul II was Polish! Probably one of the greatest moves by the Vatican (that I can think of…) was to choose a Pope from a Communist country. I dunno why I mention the story, but seemed like it might pertain to the argument.

    I liked this post and resulting debate because I’m an Obamaman (as you mightve guessed). Carry on.

  32. Jersey McJones says:

    Good point about Reagan, Joe. He no more “defeated” the Soviet Union than any of his predecessors and countless other players. Heck, Gorbechev could be said to have done it more than anyone!


  33. micky2 says:

    Reaan was the nail in the coffin, it ended with Reagan.

    JMJ said;
    “Micky, all I was saying was that all this vitriol at Hillary Clinton is misplaced.”

    No, quite the contrary. You said a whole bunch of uncalled for crap, to a lot of people who didnt deserve it.
    JMJ said;
    “I know you Christians have this deep need to be feel victimized all the time, ”

    I mean… what the hell dude ! Was that smart ass remark even neccessary ?

    I’m a christian, but not like any you’ve ever met. I’ll kick ass before I become a victim of anything, especially snotty liberals.

  34. Micky, relax. Kicking ass is not very Christian. I made the “victim” remark in reply to Carole’s “It is difficult to take a person seriously when one feels constantly belittled by that person.” I did not intend to belittle her, but yet, usual and in typical Christioan fashion, she took offense to something I said, just as you are hear. Again, “you Christians have this deep need to be feel victimized all the time.” That’s why that stupid “Passion of the Christ” movie was so popular. The funny thing is, of course, Christians pretty much rule the world as of now, so that victim mantality is a bit farsically forced.

    You said, “You said a whole bunch of uncalled for crap, to a lot of people who didnt deserve it.” Do you have an example of this, or are you just another Christian “victim.”


  35. micky2 says:

    Adolecent and deaf to start

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.