Actually, a few conservatives would acknowledge that Bill did do a few good things. Besides, even Bill was conservative in his own way (politically-speaking, of course).
Hillary Clinton SNAPS!
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
The Democrat Liberals destroyed Hillary.
Liberal Democrats did not destroy Hillary, EagleSmack, there were as many for her as were for Obama. But right wing columnists were trashing her from day one. They assumed that Hillary would be the candidate, so they were getting an early start in politics of personal destruction.
For a long time the fire of the far right was directed at Hillary. Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh and other hate radio personalities ordered their followers to vote for Obama in open primaries. Later on Rush reversed himself and mounted ‘operation chaos’, where he ordered his dittoheads to vote for Hilary in open primaries.
It was only when it became clear that Obama was going to win that the Republican fire became directed towards Obama. But for a long time, right from when primaries started, the far right press has been trashing Hillary non stop. Whether that contributed to her defeat is unclear. But far right Republicans tried.
Anyway at that time they hated Hillary far worse than they hated Obama, so it was their fervent wish that Hillary did not get the nomination. Well, they got their wish. Now of course, far right hates Obama much more viscerally, much more passionately than they ever hated Bill and Hillary. I have seen more than one of them say that they wish Hillary had become the president instead of Obama.
Liberal Democrats did not destroy Hillary, EagleSmack, there were as many for her as were for Obama. But right wing columnists were trashing her from day one. They assumed that Hillary would be the candidate, so they were getting an early start in politics of personal destruction.
For a long time the fire of the far right was directed at Hillary. Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh and other hate radio personalities ordered their followers to vote for Obama in open primaries. Later on Rush reversed himself and mounted ‘operation chaos’, where he ordered his dittoheads to vote for Hilary in open primaries.
It was only when it became clear that Obama was going to win that the Republican fire became directed towards Obama. But for a long time, right from when primaries started, the far right press has been trashing Hillary non stop. Whether that contributed to her defeat is unclear. But far right Republicans tried.
Anyway at that time they hated Hillary far worse than they hated Obama, so it was their fervent wish that Hillary did not get the nomination. Well, they got their wish. Now of course, far right hates Obama much more viscerally, much more passionately than they ever hated Bill and Hillary. I have seen more than one of them say that they wish Hillary had become the president instead of Obama.
Sure Bill was a conservative in his own way. Machjo. He belonged to centre left by US standards, he was not a liberal. While he was in office, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (outlawing gay marriages), signed into law a bill which introduced death penalty for federal offenses, instituted the unjust, unfair don’t ask, don’t tell policy for gays in military etc.
By no stretch of imagination was he a liberal. But due to some reason, the extreme right hated both Bill and Hillary with intense passion. The reason for that is not clear. The late Rev. Jerry Falwell said that his followers would vote for Lucifer rather than vote for Hillary. I don’t know what cases such intense, visceral hatred.
Now of course, far right hates Obama even more than they ever hated the Clintons. Obama is not a moderate, he is a liberal, and he makes no bones about it. He is much more liberal than Hillary. He is far right’s worst nightmare. No wonder there were cries of ‘he is an Arab’ and ‘kill him’ during the election campaign.
8O
How about "Kary Mullis?" Best of both Worlds here. A Nobel
Prize Winner & a Dirty Heratic Global Warming Denier!!! ;-) :lol:
"Hate" isn't the operative word here, incompetence is. Hillary is too full of herself and needs to come down off her high horse- she's has nothing to be up there for- just an over inflated ego, and that supercilious grin.
No no no....you and I know, as well as everyone else, that sjp's opinion IS fact....ask him...he'll tell ya.
Exactly EagleSmack, you have suddenly discovered that Bill Clinton is capable of doing good things, just so you could badmouth, trash Hillary. - SJP
MY GOSH YOU ARE RIGHT! EagleSmack
Quite so, EagleSmack I am glad we agree about something.
MY GOSH YOU ARE RIGHT! EagleSmack
Quite so, EagleSmack I am glad we agree about something.
It is not incompetence, JLM, it is hate. In my opinion she is very competent. However, the far right hated her even before the competence or incompetence was established. The far right instinctively hated both of them from the start.
That was similar to the hate that Bush generated among some Democrats, though it was not as widespread as it was in the case of the Clintons.
Bush doesn't compare. He went to the UN to get the UN behind a war in Iraq, and when the UN said no, he went in anyway, in violation of a clear UN directive, and based on a false claim of WMD's. The guy was a warmonger pure and simple.
Add to that that Bush was even more liberal thatn Clinton when it came to spending. In fact, that's just one more point on which Clinton was more conservative than Bush. Clinton was also more conservative in his use of the military, compared to Bush at least. Bush showed almost no restraint whatsoever. At least Clinton had more brains or heart than that.
Oh they did! It was fun to watch as well. Hillary looking dumbfounded and desperate as Obama took to be what she assumed was her Democrat ordanation.
Her fruitless attempts to stay in the race to the bitter end and her hapless "Why not me?" look at Obama as he accepted the nomination.
The Liberals abandoned and attacked her and it was one of the bitterest Democrat Pres campaigns I've ever witnessed.
So fun to watch!
Bush was not more liberal than Clinton when it came to spending money, Machjo. Conservatives have been remarkably successful in convincing people (without any basis whatsoever) that conservatism means fiscal prudence, nothing of the sort.
It has been a masterful PR job, but nothing more. Conservatism does not mean fiscal prudence, show me even one conservative’s leader in recent memory (starting with Reagan) who has been fiscally prudent. Conservatism means borrow and spend, nothing more, nothing less.
Liberalism stands for fiscal responsibility, whether it was Clinton in USA, Chrétien/Martin in Ottawa or McGuinty in Ontario. Conservatism, if anything stands for tax cuts, at any cost. Since they don’t want to cut spending (that would get them booted out of office), they have to borrow money to spend. That is why conservatism has become synonymous with borrow and spend.
I for one refuse to fall for the conservative con game, conservative canard, propaganda that conservatism means fiscal responsibility, fiscal prudence. Right stands for borrow and spend, left stands for tax and spend. It is the centre (whether centre right or centre left) that stands for fiscal prudence.
So I don’t agree with your statement that Bush was more liberal than Clinton when it came to spending money, he was more conservative than Clinton, he spent money like a drunken sailor, in typical conservative borrow and spend fashion.
Oh they did!
No they did not EagleSmack. There were as many liberals on one side as there were on the other. Many prominent liberals supported Hillary.
So fun to watch!
What was fun to watch was Republicans thinking that Obama would be an easy candidate to beat, a cake walk, and then get crushed. Republicans didn’t know what hit them. They had no answer to huge sums of money raised by Obama, McCain just couldn’t compete. Joan of Ark of course did not help. She energized the extreme right Republican base, but rest of the country was disgusted by her, especially by her interviews with Katie Kouric.
What was fun to watch was the total rout of the Republican Party second time in a row. What was fun to watch was Republicans going from 55 Senators in 2006 to 40 Senators in 2008.
What was fun to watch was the outrage, fury and hatred exhibited by the extreme right wing of the Republican party when they realized that USA has elected a Marxist, a Communist, a Fascist, a Nazi, a Muslim terrorist, a USSR spy, an illegal alien (all the epithets used by the hate mongers against Obama) for a President.
That was fun to watch.
No they did not EagleSmack. There were as many liberals on one side as there were on the other. Many prominent liberals supported Hillary.
So fun to watch!
What was fun to watch was Republicans thinking that Obama would be an easy candidate to beat, a cake walk, and then get crushed. Republicans didn’t know what hit them. They had no answer to huge sums of money raised by Obama, McCain just couldn’t compete. Joan of Ark of course did not help. She energized the extreme right Republican base, but rest of the country was disgusted by her, especially by her interviews with Katie Kouric.
What was fun to watch was the total rout of the Republican Party second time in a row. What was fun to watch was Republicans going from 55 Senators in 2006 to 40 Senators in 2008.
What was fun to watch was the outrage, fury and hatred exhibited by the extreme right wing of the Republican party when they realized that USA has elected a Marxist, a Communist, a Fascist, a Nazi, a Muslim terrorist, a USSR spy, an illegal alien (all the epithets used by the hate mongers against Obama) for a President.
That was fun to watch.
Sorry SJP, I wasn't using the terms liberal and conservative here in the sense of party affiliation, but rather according to the surface meaning of the words. From that standpoint, we coudl say that Jean Chretien was more conservative than harper, at least fiscally-speaking. Same with Clinton in comparison with Reagan and the Bushes.
I was talking about party status, but rather just using the words according to their basic meaning.
I was talking about party status, but rather just using the words according to their basic meaning.
Well then, I think it is time to change their basic meaning. And what is the basic meaning of liberalism anyway? Where does it say that liberalism means running huge deficits? That is more conservative propaganda.
A more realistic definition of the word ‘conservative’ would be “borrow and spend, lavish tax cuts and above all, never increase taxes, unlimited borrowing is OK”. A more realistic definition of a liberal (and I consider myself a liberal, not necessarily a Liberal) would be, “do whatever is needed to fix the economy, fix the deficit. If necessary, raise taxes (yes, even on the rich), if necessary cut spending.”
Yes and they slaughtered each other!
Then Obama made Hillary his lap dog.
Again you know very little about US Politics. It was no surprise to anyone seeing Obama beat McCain after eight years of GW.
Not as much fun as watching the liberals and Democrats get it fed back to them!
Not as much fun as watching you go into convulsions! :lol:
Again you know very little about US Politics. It was no surprise to anyone seeing Obama beat McCain after eight years of GW.
Really EagleSmack? That is not what Republicans were saying just before the election. The Republican pollster, Rasmussen was predicting a statistical dead heat just 3 or 4 days before election. Republicans were confident of victory, especially after McCain picked Joan of Ark. Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh called McCain ‘McBrilliant’ and as much as declared that the election was over.
Not as much fun as watching the liberals and Democrats get it fed back to them!
Not as much fun as watching you go into convulsions!
Now why would I go into convulsions? And Democrats getting it fed back to them? As I recall, that happened last in 1994. That was 15 years ago. How many more years are you going to feed on that? 15 more years?
Really EagleSmack? That is not what Republicans were saying just before the election. The Republican pollster, Rasmussen was predicting a statistical dead heat just 3 or 4 days before election. Republicans were confident of victory, especially after McCain picked Joan of Ark. Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh called McCain ‘McBrilliant’ and as much as declared that the election was over.
Not as much fun as watching the liberals and Democrats get it fed back to them!
Not as much fun as watching you go into convulsions!
Now why would I go into convulsions? And Democrats getting it fed back to them? As I recall, that happened last in 1994. That was 15 years ago. How many more years are you going to feed on that? 15 more years?