FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Hilary Clinton





UnikeViruz
I have heard alot of talk sayin Hilary was behind Clinton when he was in office...I have also heard that Hilary will be running for president next election year? Does anyone know any truth to these possible lies? Or maybe are they true and our wonderful county will be run by a woman....

Dont get me wrong I think Hilary would be an excellent leader for our country. I think she would be able to do alot better than bush is doing right now.
S3nd K3ys
UnikeViruz wrote:
I have heard alot of talk sayin Hilary was behind Clinton when he was in office...I have also heard that Hilary will be running for president next election year? Does anyone know any truth to these possible lies? Or maybe are they true and our wonderful county will be run by a woman....

Dont get me wrong I think Hilary would be an excellent leader for our country. I think she would be able to do alot better than bush is doing right now.


Hillary Clinton is a tool, nothing more. Just like John Kerry.

She will say what ever she needs to to appease those she is addressing at that moment.

Hillary Clinton would make a terrible leader.

She has none of her own ideas. She's two faced. She tries to politicize EVERYTHING to the extent that it becomes a national threat. She lies.

She's flip-flopped on everything from immigration to ethenol to Iraq to Monicagate to capitolism to the Palestinian problem.

Hillary Clinton wrote:
Hillary on Capitalism

“There are some things we feel— feelings that our prevailing acquisitive and competitive corporate life, including, tragically, universities, is not the way of life for us. We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living.”
—Hillary, speaking at her Wellesley commencement. Apparently, she got over her animus of the “acquisitive and competitive” lifestyle soon enough to make a decent profit in Whitewater and cattle futures.

“As we end this century, any doubts about the effectiveness of organizing our economy along the lines of a free market have finally been put to rest.” Washington Times (7/13/1999)
—Hillary, speaking at the World Economic Forum in 1998.

Hillary on Palestinian Policy

“I think it will be in the long-term interests of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state.” Quoted on ABCNews.com (5/7/1998)
—Hillary, making a statement of her opinion, one that is in stark contrast to official White House policy. Presidential spokesmen were quick to separate her statement from the official position.

“We all look forward to the day when Jerusalem will be home to the embassy of the United States and all other nations.” (7/28/1999)
—Hillary, establishing her support for moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. She also called Jerusalem the “eternal and indivisible” capital of Israel.

Hillary on Monicagate

“I do believe that this is a battle. . . . This vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President.”
—Hillary, declaring war on the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer—the conspiracy responsible for Clinton’s affair with a 21 year old intern, as well as his perjury and obstruction of justice.

“I think a lot of this is prejudice against our state.” Quoted in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (8/11/1998)


“He was so young, barely 4, when he was scarred by abuse that he can’t even take it out and look at it. There was terrible conflict between his mother and his grandmother. A psychologist once told me that for a boy being in the middle of a conflict between two women is the worst possible situation. There is always the desire to please each one.”
—Hillary, explaining Bill’s behavior to Talk Magazine using the “abuse excuse.”
Gorgi321
there are so many rumors about her running for president but only she and a few other people really know whats going to happened in 2008.
if she does run i think that she would win. after bush any one could win lol.
maybe a woman will do beter than a man ???
deleteditems
Doubt she will. Anyway if she does run they'll just vote some dumbass in anyway.
Tiger
I am not an American and although I know something about American politics, I am nowhere near an expert. Having said that, I think it very likely that Hilary Clinton will run for office when she get's the chance. I also think that a lot of Americans will vote for her, some of them just because she is a woman.

You never know which way things will go. Many people said that Bush wouldn't be voted in for a second term, but he was. Hilary Clinton ran for governor as soon as her husband was out of office. It's the first step on the way to the presidency.

I guess we'll only find out when the elections are over, but I'd say she has a good chance, especially if she runs right after Bush, and has a lot of her husbands old supporters vote for her - and many will, just because she's his wife. In a way, it's the next best thing to having him back in the White House.

Time will tell, so let's wait and see.
hunterm
I don't know much about american politics, but I think the leaders are just representatives of policy makers, not policy makers themselves. Do you think Bush is a good leader with good policies? The leaders are just mouthpieces.
Anyway, Hilary Clinton will do a hell of a better job than Bush, outside of the states he's considered a joke who got to where he has through his daddies money and cantacts.
cbf-cma
Hillary is most likely to win the Democratic primaries and the has a good chance of beating McCain and Rudolph Guliani. I think the best tactic for the republicans isn't just to demonize Hillary, but to promote the democrat, Barrak Obama, who is african american. If he wins the primary instead of Clinton, then there will probably be another 4 years of republican presidency because Americans still harbor negative feelings of minorities and the stereotype of black males as criminals.
imera
If she does winn it will be great I think.
I live in Norway and we had once a female prime minister, it was a shock to everyone at that time because a woman.. it was an outrage, but that was for the most the men saying. Everything that is new frightens people, even if it does make things better. It is the same in a black man or a chinese should run for president. People has an image of what the world is like and any change will be difficult acept as it’s not in the picture.
palavra
UnikeViruz wrote:
I have heard alot of talk sayin Hilary was behind Clinton when he was in office...I have also heard that Hilary will be running for president next election year? Does anyone know any truth to these possible lies? Or maybe are they true and our wonderful county will be run by a woman....

.


i think

if hilary runs for presidency in the next election term, reps. also will

nominate a female candidate.

in both case, a woman will be president of usa.

none of them can be more incompetent than the bush

at least the hate of usa will be reduce in all over the world.
jumpbox
I think that they are true and that Hilery Clinton will try to run for president. But i don't think that she will win. And if she does it will be a sad day for our country because i think that she is being used by her husband and that if she becomes president he will really be president. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
bogger
jumpbox wrote:
I think that they are true and that Hillary Clinton will try to run for president. But i don't think that she will win. And if she does it will be a sad day for our country because i think that she is being used by her husband and that if she becomes president he will really be president. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.


While I respect your opinion, I think it's sexist to say that the man MUST be running the show, In honesty, women are more suited to leadership source: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp606581.pdf

Another thing is that Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a bad president, I don't see why people have this opinion. He did make vast improvements to the Northern Ireland question. So, 2 things:

1) Why do you think she's just "being used" by her husband?

2) What do you dislike about Bill Clinton from an economic point of view?

btw. how is this economically related?
raghu.steppenwolf
if bush can be president, hillary can, and she'd probably do a better job!
Anticollie
To be honest, I probably wouldn't vote for Hilary if she won the Democratic Primaries. I don't particularly condone her scrutanizing views on most everytihng on the planet, she has to over-develope her views to a point that it's like "K, please, just... stop already."

I really don't view her as a "Flip FLopper or a Tool" as someone described her, she's one of the most freethinking people around, in my opinion.

That being said, she would most definatly make a better president than Mr. Bush, but that's not saying much, because generally speaking, 5/6 inanimate objects and pets in my house could do a better job at the presidency than Dubya. It's hard to explain, I don't harbor negative feelings for Ms. Clinton, but at the same time, I simply don't view her stingant yet liberal views, they kind of make me sick to my stomach. But if somehow Dubya's long lost clone-brother pops up and they decide they want to try to have 3 Bushs in the White House... I'll either vote Hilary assuming she wins primaries, or write someone in (Throwing away my vote with that write-in, but atleast I'm voting!)

Anticollie, too lazy to spell check.
indeedwrestling
My wife works for the Democratic Party and she's the first person to say that Hillary is a polarizing and power-hungry candidate who carpet-bagged her way into NY and political office and that her running will only cause a huge amount of support for whomever the other parties run. Why? If you thought John Kerry seemed to appeal to East Coast liberals, just imagine Hillary. She can't even win over half of her own state as Upstate NY refuses to support her. However, the pundits on TV love her so they'll throw her name around until she starts getting treated like the Jacky O of the 21st Century.
bogger
Eh, I hate to be mean, but her economic polcies aren't that radical. I would go into that, but i'm uninformed, could someone either link me to a summary of her views on socio economic policies, or even normal economic policies, or if that's impossible, the manifesto (shock, horror)

@ Anticollie: If you don't think about everything, then you're just pretending that you're safe in your ignorance. How can you give out to her for challenging the way everything is done, as a politician, isn't that your job?
jwellsy
This thread has nothing to do with Economics and Marketing.
This thread needs either closed or moved to the politics forum.

Don't feed the trolls!
bogger
Ah, pssh tosh, you just repeated what I said!

And anyways, it has everything to do with economics, we ARE discussing the economic repurcussions and her economic policy here, well, I am
Alaskacameradude
If she runs I'm voting for the other person.....and it's not because she is a woman....it's because I don't agree with a lot of her politics. I don't think people should vote for someone because they are a woman or because they are not a woman. If you agree with her than yes...vote for her but don't call me a sexist because I won't . I have voted for a woman before but only when they held a lot of the same values and beliefs as me. As a matter of fact we just elected a woman governor here in Alaska....and I think it is safe to say she wouldn't agree with Hilary on many issues.
bogger
Bearing in mind the "economic" side of things.

What part of her policy don't you agree with, As far as I know, it all depends on your background, alaska obviously wouldn't vote for her, considering the massive windfall they get from the oil, which hillary would want to take.

We have to bear in mind, that her policies should foster international trade, and reduce her budget deficit
Alaskacameradude
Bearing in mind the "economic" side of things there are plenty of things I don't agree with her on. Her policy on illegal immegration, and yes this IS an economic issue. And as you stated, her policy on oil. I am in a state that depends heavily on resource development, and without resource development there are many thousands of people in this state that suddenly have NO jobs. It is hard enough up here as most jobs are seasonal......and the former Clinton administration's horrible policies on timber and fishing have not helped the economy at all up here.

Many people are not aware that when Alaska joined the United States as a state, there were several provisions.....one of them was that the state would get a certain percentage of it's resources while the federal government would get the rest (the 90-10 split).....a percentage that the federal government has changed to give them a higher percentage. ANILCA had a "no more" clause in it that guaranteed that the federal government would not "lock up" or put "totally off limits" any more land in certain forests from logging.....there were already more acres of national forest in Alaska than in the rest of the lower 48 states. So guess what the Clinton administration did??? Ya they broke that promise as well and locked up a whole bunch more forest, crippling many southeast Alaska towns.....many of my friends ended up having to move out of state as the jobs were just gone.....fishing and the Glacier Bay lockdown....I could go on and on don't get me started.

But as far as the oil goes, I don't really think I would develop ANWR right now even though you are right and our state would benefit from it. BUT I would also not put a "lock up" on it to preclude any development of it in the future as Hilary and many "big city" democrats (who have no clue about living in the bush with outhouses and no running water or heat) want to do. I'd just hang on to it....and not develop it now, but in the future if we needed oil because of the Middle East cutting us off or something....we'd have a big field of oil that we could use......how would it help us to put it off limits forever I ask you?????

So yes, I do have a lot of problems with Hilary, but they are not all just because I would benefit personally from seeing her policies fail. I think some of her economic AND other policies make very little sense. Of course that's just my opinion and anyone is free to disagree with me. My opinion is not just based on what would help me personally though, I have a good grasp on politics as I cover the state legislature in Alaska for various TV news stations and have done so for 10 years. I have a pretty good grasp of the issues.both national and local. I understand why some want to put wilderness areas in Alaska off limits to development, as it is beautiful and I love the wilderness myself, that's why I live here. But there has to be a balance or it will turn into a big "tourist park" that is only open in the summer.....and as soon as the tourist/summer season is over everyone has to leave as there are no other jobs around for anyone.
bogger
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Bearing in mind the "economic" side of things there are plenty of things I don't agree with her on.(shortened


I agree with you, from what I see. Mrs Clinton as president would be bad for Alaska. But I would like to think that she would be good for the Rest of the country as a whole, in that she would reduce the bloated budget deficit, and for the world, (but not in an economic sense, just environmentally)

HOWEVER, illegal immigration is a necessity for America, IMO, it means that average Americans don't have to do menial labour. It also gets one's food made at a lower price

Alaskacameradude wrote:
Many people are not aware that when Alaska joined the United States as a state, there were several provisions...(shortened)


In the long run, greater amounts of Forests have helped the tourist industry, so you're merely talking about the world vs your world.

Alaskacameradude wrote:
But as far as the oil goes, I don't really think I would develop ANWR right now even though you are right and our state would benefit from it. (shortened)


I refuse to believe that you have neither running water nor heat, if you have the Internet... By locking it down, it would be open to future development, but it would be harder, so one couldn't use it to get votes, but if there was a real political will, it could be done. Nothing in politics is concrete. It's not off limits for ever, just "hard to access"

Alaskacameradude wrote:
So yes, I do have a lot of problems with Hilary, but they are not all just because I would benefit personally from seeing her policies fail. (shortened it)


I will defer to you, because you have more knowledge, but personally, I like Hilary, You may well be right though, I'll have to reassess my views.
Alaskacameradude
Well, as I said everyone is free to have their own opinion and I do respect people who actually have an informed opinion instead of just "This is my opinion because".

As I said tourism mostly benefits out of state rich guys from California who own most of the tourism shops....come up here for the summer and pay college kids $8/hr to work for them, and then leave after the summer, so keeping forests off limits to development does little to actually help economically unless you count helping a bunch of rich guys who own the places. Tourism provides very very few actual jobs that would support a family...probably less than 5% of tourism jobs are real jobs....but beyond that my main problem was how the Clinton administration broke a promise made to Alaska by the federal government.

Illegal immigration....you have some points. I just finished watching a special on it on TV and now I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it but it made me think.

As far as you refusing to believe I don't have running water or power....I do now. I grew up without running water or anything, but of course the lack of job opportunities that I am referring to forced me to move a couple years ago and now I live in a relatively modern small town of 30 thousand people which is one of the largest cities in Alaska. However, be careful in your assumptions. I have several friends who still live in the town I grew up in. They carry all their water in buckets, use outhouses or "honey buckets" because they have no running water, chop wood for heat, no road access, no showers, and guess what??? They have satellite internet!! Satellite internet is way way cheaper and easier to get than to get running water or power in many parts of Alaska. Gas and diesel prices between $6-10 a gollon will do that. And to pay someone to fly in (the only way to get into the towns since we have no roads) and drill you a well is out of this world expensive. That's why Alaska is always on the conservatives list of "most pork" or most taxpayer money wasted or whatever their silly designations are.....because while the rest of the country has been developed, Alaska hasn't and many people here live in third world conditions in many ways, and it takes a lot of money to change that.

But good debate and I welcome intelligent opinions like yours!!!
bogger
Thank you, you bring out the best in me.

It seems to me that a big help to you would be an increase in higher end taxes. This would/should chop off some profits from the big guys, and then, assuming a proper social welfare scheme, redistribute it to the poor.

I do agree with you on breaking promises. If you can't trust your government on promises, then how can you trust them to spend your money properly? Of course, some say (The Economist, to be precise) that a distrust of your government is healthy, but the distrust shoud be unfounded!

I do believe that higher taxed for the whole of the USA would help you, and afaik, that is what the democrats wants, I'm not saying that you should vote for Hillary now, just that you should vote democrats.

*runs out of opine*
Alaskacameradude
Again you bring up some good points which I agree with. By the way, I am not saying that so called "conservatives" have the answer either. They say they are for controlled spending but do they do that? No not usually, they usually spend as much or more than the dems, yet try to cut taxes, not a great strategy. I just wish there were more than two choices. Here in Alaska I voted for a democrat for my local congressperson, a republican for our national congress (mainly because he is an powerful incumbent who does a good job of getting money for our state, not the best reason but we can use any federal dollars for infastructure improvement that we can get) and I voted for a independent for governor, a real moderate who got both the dems and repubs mad at him. I'm one of those idealistic people who doesn't vote by party but by if I agree with the positions of a candidate and I'm not afraid to "throw away" my vote to an independent if I don't like either of the two choices we usually get.

By the way I run a small video production company and I did a TV political commercial for a local democrat who was running for state house (not in my district, but for the district next to me) Her particular district almost always votes repub but she did TV commercials with me and her opponent got a little too confident and didn't do TV....she upset him by 60 votes. Take a look if you want, it's on my site in the demos page. It's the middle picture on the top row, just click on it and watch. My website is at:

www.gforcevideo.com
bogger
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Again you bring up some good points which I agree with. By the way, I am not saying that so called "conservatives" have the answer either. They say they are for controlled spending but do they do that? No not usually, they usually spend as much or more than the dems, yet try to cut taxes, not a great strategy. I just wish there were more than two choices. Here in Alaska I voted for a democrat for my local congressperson, a republican for our national congress (mainly because he is an powerful incumbent who does a good job of getting money for our state, not the best reason but we can use any federal dollars for infastructure improvement that we can get) and I voted for a independent for governor, a real moderate who got both the dems and repubs mad at him. I'm one of those idealistic people who doesn't vote by party but by if I agree with the positions of a candidate and I'm not afraid to "throw away" my vote to an independent if I don't like either of the two choices we usually get.

By the way I run a small video production company and I did a TV political commercial for a local democrat who was running for state house (not in my district, but for the district next to me) Her particular district almost always votes repub but she did TV commercials with me and her opponent got a little too confident and didn't do TV....she upset him by 60 votes. Take a look if you want, it's on my site in the demos page. It's the middle picture on the top row, just click on it and watch. My website is at:

www.gforcevideo.com


lol, not bad. TBH you should always vote independents, because in the event of a close election, the indepents will screw the country over for their voters (happened in Ireland, he got 5 swimming pools, and 3 new harbours etc. for around 100,000 people)

I don't think that the democrats are good, I just think they're better. And tbh I think we've come to an agreement here, so we should really continue this via PM, cos we're pretty close to being called spammers
kochelp
Confucious say: In balance lies harmony.
bogger
That has to be one of the most spamlike topics I know of,

I wish I were a moderator right now so I could delete you post Evil or Very Mad


Anyways, from your statement, I would say that you don't like Mrs Clinton, because she is disharmonious, breaking up the country into groups of radicals, because of a like or loath approach, I would disagree, but your topic is too short to bother...
illegalhost
wow. hillary clinton being president??? that would be news of the year mate!!! but think about it, she would have difficulty in making decisions. her hubbie was the former president, and i think he would most likely interfere with her decisions?? but i think and hope that she could stand up on her own decisions and make the right calls, for the sake of the country!!! seeing the state that the country is in right now, it makes one sad, just to even think about it!!! she would have a tough responsibility and act to follow. and does a woman have what it takes to hold the most powerful seat in the whole universe??? i would like to see that she COULD succeed and of course there would be happy endings in the end!!! cuz right now, her country needs the right decisions to be made, and someone has to step up!!! so all the best to the next elected!!!! Cool
bogger
illegalhost wrote:
does a woman have what it takes to hold the most powerful seat in the whole universe???


That there m8 is sexist.

Have some proof that women are actually BETTER at running a country than men are.

www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp606581.pdf

It's a long read, but it has substantial evidence proving my vague and generalist statement isn't entirely false Smile
Related topics
GTA: San Andreas PC (OFFICIAL THREAD)
Hillary playing the race card to slam bush..
to be a Republican...
US democrats Obama vs Clinton?
Democratic Candidates.
Hilary Clinton to be next President of U.S.
The most spectacular prediction of Nostradomus
Americans Only: Will You Vote For Clinton Anyway?
We need a political forum!
If a black man becomes a US president
The Presidential Sweepstakes: WIN 500 Frih$ !
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
McCain choses Sarah Palin as running mate.
Sexism in the US Presidential Election
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Economics and Marketing

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.