07 December 2007

Hillary Rodham

Oh... and Clinton, of course...
when it's to her advantage to remind you.

I've intended for some time to write about HRC and how interesting it is gonna be now that Obama and Oprah have hooked up.

The "inevitability" of Hillary's candidacy has vanished, like the puff of smoke in a magicians act.
Then I saw Ann's post and realized I could not do better.

--Added, from Synova in the comments:
"Being told what to think by men?
Is that any worse than being told what to think by Jane Fonda and subject to abuse if I have my *own* ideas?
Hillary is evil, not stupid.
Jane Fonda is stupid."

Oh my!


Flightfire said...

Can someone please explain to me why so many people think that Hillary is evil? I can list reason after reason why I truly believe that George W. is evil(torture, war, injustice), but I am puzzled as to why people think Hillary is Satan incarnate.

The only thing I really know about her is that she had a failed health care plan in Congress, she has been a successful New York Senator, and she stayed with her husband after he cheated on her.

I feel like it is the last point that is such a stickler for people. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think most conservatives think she only stayed with Bill because she wanted political power. That may be true, but think about the number of women in this country who have stayed with their husbands through infidelity. It's never talked about, but there are a lot.

I guess I'm just curious why you hate her so much.

Greybeard said...

Hate her? What is it with that word and you, guy?
You once used the word "hate" referring to GWB in a comment here. (To me, disturbing coming from a hopeful MD.)
I don't think you can point to an instance where I have ever said I hated a Politician or Celebrity...
It's an awfully strong emotion.
(But with John Kerry, I'll be truthful and say I came mighty close!)

Go and read the comments to the link I provided FF. I love comments, because bloggers who comment know stuff none of the rest of us know. Comments at that link are VERY educational, to say the least.

And one other thing...
Here are the names of 45 dead associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Truth or Fiction debunks SOME of the claims...
but... as you can see, not all.

I think she is a very smart, ruthless politician. Without her by his side, Slick Willy would never have been elected President.
My problem with her is that she is a Socialist. What happens to my (our) freedom if she is elected?

Flightfire said...

1. You're right. I overstate my case too often and I will try to work on that, but I just assume that when people call someone "evil" that they generally hate them. Is it a logical fallacy to consider something evil but not hate it?

2. I read the comments and got the general impression that conservatives consider her to be a political leech on her husband and they're scared she is a socialist. There is a difference between fiscally responsible and socialist. I think the most important characteristic that we need in the next President is fiscal responsibility. The Clinton's raised taxes a little, but they left GW with a balanced budget and good economic prospects. Now we're either going to have to raise taxes a lot or go into default on services that were promised to your generation. Services that you have paid into your whole working life. Stark choices, but that's what we're being left with.

3. I looked at your death list and it sounds like you're blaming the Clintons for suicides, heart attacks, and small plane crashes. C'mon Greybeard, if this were being said about GW I would still consider it stupid.

4. Do you really believe that Clinton would've never been elected without her. Bill Clinton is one of the brightest minds of your generation. Read their biographies sometime.

I gotta go study

Greybeard said...

Boy oh Boy...
Where to start?
If you are lucky enough to become a Doctor, Hillary will make life miserable for you and yours with her "Socialist" health care plan, you understand that don't you, PreMD?

And my friend, I wonder about your reading comprehension! You do understand that when something appears in quotation marks, unless I'm using them as an indication of something scary, it means I'm quoting someone else's words, right? I didn't call Hillary evil... those were the words of some gal responding to Ann Althouse's blog-post. I think Hillary is "scary", but I don't hate her. Evil? That's yet to be seen.
Now as you say, you do need to study:

"The Clinton's (sic) raised taxes a little"...
And again, in an article refuting GWB's claim that Clinton's tax increases were the largest in history, we find that in fact they were only the second largest in history!

On several occasions I've received email listing Marxist comments attributed to Hillary. Incredulous, and thinking she was too smart to make such comments while running for President I did a little research. In this column, an obvious "friend of Hill" says those comments were taken out of context. But if you read the context, you can see the meaning is mostly unchanged. It's obvious she wants to increase taxes to pay for her Socialist programs. Ready for another HUGE tax increase?!
(How long does it take these days to pay off bills from Med School?)

Reading comp. #2...
That "death list" is not ME accusing them of anything. It IS a list of people, some of whom have died under VERY STRANGE circumstances, that ran in Clinton circles or were bringing legal action against them. (I thought it was clear that it was from Truthorfiction.com, and some were refuted, some were not.)

And to your last statement, no doubt Bill Clinton is one of the "brightest minds" of my generation. Bright is not the word I would use... I'd call him brilliant. He's a draft dodger and illegal drug user. We know he is a philanderer. He also falls under the category of perjuror. I don't need to read a biography to know that son, I have watched it unfold in real life!
You are too young to remember this interview, but I was watching it the night it aired!
Do I believe he could have been President without her?
Not just NO, but HELL NO!

Anxiously awaiting your next....

Greybeard said...

And as "Columbo" would say...
"Oh, just one more thing..."

Answer this please, FF:
When President Bush proposed allowing us to invest our own Social Security funds in order to make that program solvent, which party resisted that effort?

Flightfire said...

To paraphrase: where to start. I'm not necessarily for socialized medicine but it will CERTAINLY not make life more difficult for doctors. Do you know how much of a headache it is for individual doctors to bill 20 separate insurance companies, have those bills denied, send them back with the threat of a lawsuit, be reimbused half of what they billed, have to send another letter demanding full payment, be told to seek reimbusement from the patient, send a bill to the patient...you get the idea. Sure I might be paid a little less, but it would make my life a hell of a lot easier. I'm being trained to diagnose illness, not do useless paperwork that a useless bureaucracy can eat up. Entire industries are built upon processing and denying medical insurance and billing. The middlemen just keep piling up. And yes I have seem the military system, and yes I believe it has it's flaws, but when you were in the military, did you pay to go see private practitioners because they were so much better or the wait was so much shorter? Or were you just lucky enough to never get sick?

You, on the other hand, have very good reason to be worried as socialized health care might put you out of job. The medical helicopter industry is horribly inefficient. You probably did less medevacs in Vietnam for people with severed limbs than you do for people today who are perfectly stable.

Clinton's tax increases were the second largest in history, and yet the economy kept humming along and even boiled over at the end of his term. That seems to fly in the face of your worrying about taxes.

Gotta go, more tommorrow

Greybeard said...

Reading comp. #3...
Regular readers here know my job in Viet Nam was to sever limbs from bodies and bring those bodies to ambient temperature,
NOT transport those with severed limbs to hospitals.

Economists (and I admit I know almost nuttin' about the subject), agree the economy is like a huge oil tanker...
Changing it takes years.
The "Bubble" that happened late in Bubba's term was partially his doing, but I'll admit he was also responsible for things that contributed to stability in the economy which put up some good numbers. Responsiblity for the debacle in the Banking/Savings and Loan industry certainly happened on HIS watch, and was probably responsible for the intitial recession in GWB's term.

I want your email address so we can discuss how little "Socialized Medicine" has changed your life in 10-20 years, boy!
You're right that it will change my industry dramatically, (and it DOES need changin'), but there'll be some bureaucrat 'way off in a distant land making the decisions about who does/does not fly. We all know how well the Department of Motor
Vehicles works, don't we? That's the future of medical care for ya!
And could you please, please, please at at least attempt to answer the direct questions I ask you?
(Social Security and other entitlement programs)

Flightfire said...

You have my e-mail, just click on my name and that will give you the address. I try not to print it too many places so I don't get spammed.

Sorry, my computer ran out of batteries and I couldn't get around to entitlement programs.

I could give two craps about Social Security. I think it's an antiquated program that is underfunded and doomed to failure. I'm planning my finances to pay into it most of my life and never receive a dime of that money when I retire. And you know what, I'm ok with that. My grandma and lots of other people's grandmas barely get by with their social security checks. I guess what I'd like to see is a gradual phase out, so that majority of people who have paid into it get some return that gradually phases out as my generation gets toward retirement.

President Bush's plan was pure idiocy. He was thinking about letting you invest your money into a select number of mutual funds or bonds. Sounds great on the surface, only problem is that the government is still technically in control of that money until you retire. That basically means they are dumping the entire social security trust fund into the stocks and bonds market. Do you see the inherent conflict of interest in dumping several hundred billion dollars of government controlled money into those markets? Think of it as a hostile takeover of the entire stock market. All of a sudden, the government has a huge controlling stake in our nation's securities markets. Talk about socialism. The markets will fluctuate wildly on the whim of a bureaucrat.

You missed the point of the helicopter comment, but it sounds like we're both in agreement anyway.

I'm not necessarily in favor of socialized medicine. But I think the power needs to be transferred out of the hands of insurance companies and drug companies and put squarely back in the hands of the consumer and provider. If you can figure out how to do that without having the government intervene, I'm all ears.

One more thing. I'll never really understand conservatives views on taxes. Do you really enjoy paying more in taxes than Warren Buffet? Because you do. Maybe not in sheer quantity, but in percentage of your income. Is that really fair? Does Warren work harder than you? Do all rich people? Please explain to me why you are in favor of massive tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich.

No more comments for a while. It's finals week. Merry Christmas

Greybeard said...

I'll say this FF...
You've made it very clear why you don't understand conservative attitudes toward Hillary Rodham!