>>Are you just a sexist yourself, or do you know Hillary >>personally? One could certainly make that assumption with >>the way you talk.
They are the things that I have observed and surmised (rightly or wrongly) from any number of sources.
To use another example, I think that the reason why Gen. Powell is in office now is because of the work he had done in Bush Snr's team. Whatever everyone else might think of the supposed nepotism, he proved himself and has now been given a new brief.
He didn't get this job because he kept turning up in Dick Cheney's office with notes from brainstorming sessions and/or kept press-ganging James Baker in the coffee room, excitedly telling Mr Baker how to do his job. Then because JB happens to do something Gen. Powell mentions he feels that he would "be a big asset" to Bush Jnr or he definitley deserves the post of the Mayor Of Boston based on all of his `governing experience`.
>>Why is it that strong women are so threatening to men like >>you?
I'd like to see my wife debate Hillary Clinton... you don't know the meaning of the phrase "strong woman" ;-) (If anyone wants to be sarcastic on this point...extreme verbal abuse will follow!)
It's not based on gender...it's based on character. There are any number of women on both sides of the divide who serve their parties and their people well. But I'm being as over-direct as I would be if the Democratic Party ran a ticket of Jerry Springer and Jesse Ventura in 2004 or whenever.
Now it's not to say that Springer, Ventura and Rodham have zip to offer the electorate - but in the same way it seems like fair game to trounce the record and choices of our current president-elect, why is the non-record of the wife of the soon-to-be ex-president so sacred?
When sections of the media was baying about GWB's lack of experience during the election, the Whitehouse webpage had a list of Texas achievements that they tried to take the credit for. If Dubya produced that, then certain people on the left would try and tear it to shreds. Then, as Rick Lazio asked in his (poorly-ran) campaign "Name one thing she's done for New York" and also "Name one substantive thing on her record that gives her any business here".
I can believe that there are people here who have a great big honour rolls of achievement from Mrs C. that evaded 90% of the media - but if we insist about applying a rule of `truth` to the actions of GWB then why should anyone else who aspires to that leadership be let of the hook? Why tolerate a double standard? If she's been trying to rule from behind the throne - let's just say that.
>>Geez, get yourself informed. Not just about Hillary, but >>everything you speak of.
Why do I stay here talking and explaining myself then? Why don't you even sign your posts? Would you care to make a list of mistakes that slipped past Scott and David?
Richard
to clarify
R
richard
(view)
>>Are you just a sexist yourself, or do you know Hillary >>personally? One could certainly make that assumption with >>the way you talk.
They are the things that I have observed and surmised (rightly or wrongly) from any number of sources.
To use another example, I think that the reason why Gen. Powell is in office now is because of the work he had done in Bush Snr's team. Whatever everyone else might think of the supposed nepotism, he proved himself and has now been given a new brief.
He didn't get this job because he kept turning up in Dick Cheney's office with notes from brainstorming sessions and/or kept press-ganging James Baker in the coffee room, excitedly telling Mr Baker how to do his job. Then because JB happens to do something Gen. Powell mentions he feels that he would "be a big asset" to Bush Jnr or he definitley deserves the post of the Mayor Of Boston based on all of his `governing experience`.
>>Why is it that strong women are so threatening to men like >>you?
I'd like to see my wife debate Hillary Clinton... you don't know the meaning of the phrase "strong woman" ;-) (If anyone wants to be sarcastic on this point...extreme verbal abuse will follow!)
It's not based on gender...it's based on character. There are any number of women on both sides of the divide who serve their parties and their people well. But I'm being as over-direct as I would be if the Democratic Party ran a ticket of Jerry Springer and Jesse Ventura in 2004 or whenever.
Now it's not to say that Springer, Ventura and Rodham have zip to offer the electorate - but in the same way it seems like fair game to trounce the record and choices of our current president-elect, why is the non-record of the wife of the soon-to-be ex-president so sacred?
When sections of the media was baying about GWB's lack of experience during the election, the Whitehouse webpage had a list of Texas achievements that they tried to take the credit for. If Dubya produced that, then certain people on the left would try and tear it to shreds. Then, as Rick Lazio asked in his (poorly-ran) campaign "Name one thing she's done for New York" and also "Name one substantive thing on her record that gives her any business here".
I can believe that there are people here who have a great big honour rolls of achievement from Mrs C. that evaded 90% of the media - but if we insist about applying a rule of `truth` to the actions of GWB then why should anyone else who aspires to that leadership be let of the hook? Why tolerate a double standard? If she's been trying to rule from behind the throne - let's just say that.
>>Geez, get yourself informed. Not just about Hillary, but >>everything you speak of.
Why do I stay here talking and explaining myself then? Why don't you even sign your posts? Would you care to make a list of mistakes that slipped past Scott and David?
Richard
They are the things that I have observed and surmised (rightly or wrongly) from any number of sources.
To use another example, I think that the reason why Gen. Powell is in office now is because of the work he had done in Bush Snr's team. Whatever everyone else might think of the supposed nepotism, he proved himself and has now been given a new brief.
He didn't get this job because he kept turning up in Dick Cheney's office with notes from brainstorming sessions and/or kept press-ganging James Baker in the coffee room, excitedly telling Mr Baker how to do his job. Then because JB happens to do something Gen. Powell mentions he feels that he would "be a big asset" to Bush Jnr or he definitley deserves the post of the Mayor Of Boston based on all of his `governing experience`.
>>Why is it that strong women are so threatening to men like >>you?
I'd like to see my wife debate Hillary Clinton... you don't know the meaning of the phrase "strong woman" ;-) (If anyone wants to be sarcastic on this point...extreme verbal abuse will follow!)
It's not based on gender...it's based on character. There are any number of women on both sides of the divide who serve their parties and their people well. But I'm being as over-direct as I would be if the Democratic Party ran a ticket of Jerry Springer and Jesse Ventura in 2004 or whenever.
Now it's not to say that Springer, Ventura and Rodham have zip to offer the electorate - but in the same way it seems like fair game to trounce the record and choices of our current president-elect, why is the non-record of the wife of the soon-to-be ex-president so sacred?
When sections of the media was baying about GWB's lack of experience during the election, the Whitehouse webpage had a list of Texas achievements that they tried to take the credit for. If Dubya produced that, then certain people on the left would try and tear it to shreds. Then, as Rick Lazio asked in his (poorly-ran) campaign "Name one thing she's done for New York" and also "Name one substantive thing on her record that gives her any business here".
I can believe that there are people here who have a great big honour rolls of achievement from Mrs C. that evaded 90% of the media - but if we insist about applying a rule of `truth` to the actions of GWB then why should anyone else who aspires to that leadership be let of the hook? Why tolerate a double standard? If she's been trying to rule from behind the throne - let's just say that.
>>Geez, get yourself informed. Not just about Hillary, but >>everything you speak of.
Why do I stay here talking and explaining myself then? Why don't you even sign your posts? Would you care to make a list of mistakes that slipped past Scott and David?
Richard
