Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bill Clinton enters Hillary's e-mail scandal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Provokatsiya
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Absolutely agreed there. Rotten people often make the best leaders. Nixon was an absolute POS but a decent President. With Clinton you could take him out of the trailer park but you couldn't get the trailer park out of him...

    LBJ was a very shrewd politician, not the best on policy but he knew how to get what he wanted and a absolutely crude human being.

    What you have to watch for are people who are duplicitous, narcissistic, and ruthless. You don't want them in charge because they will simply use you to get ahead and don't give a rat's patoot about the damage they cause along the way so long as they, themselves, get ahead.
    Hillary is exactly that sort of person.
    In the modern era at least. Case in point: FDR. IRS, wiretapping, hate-lists, guess who patented much of that? Henry Kissinger himself said that nobody understood Machiavelli better. Yet I'm hornswoggled to think of a better President sans Lincoln and maybe Washington.

    One interesting thing to note on that line is that Richard Nixon liked De Gaulle, Brezhnev, Meir, Assad Senior, Suharto, and Mao far more than anybody in the Senate. He didn't just work with them better, he actually liked them as people more. It entered the flat out realm of the creepy during his final trip to the Soviet Union in 1974 when he and Brezhnev began discussing how they worried about the character of people when they got material posessions and the dangers of "subversive" influences for "strong societies". (Ditto Kissinger. No matter how much they drove each other nuts, Nixon and Kissinger were an effective duo not least because they shared the same view of the world.)

    They had personal chemistry. Nixon didn't pretend to be charming or go into platitudes about human rights, he'd coldly hammer out "understandings", alternately bribing and blackmailing as he needed to, and figuring out dispassionately the pros and cons of the situation-damn the right or wrong. That should say a lot about how Nixon thought about life and himself. He actually preferred dealing with authoritarians. This isn't purely bad strictly from a foreign policy effectiveness standpoint-I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I were to choose a President to deal with Vladimir Putin, it would be Richard Nixon. I also have absolutely no doubt that he would be the last person I'd want to have post-9/11 powers.

    If you think Clinton was "trailer park", you should read about LBJ forcing "the Harvards" to hold meetings with him while he was sitting on the toilet in order to display dominance. Or the button that the staff pressed if he was humping someone when Lady Bird entered the building.

    The high-functioning semi-sociopaths have to go somewhere. Usually it is DC or somewhere in corporate America. And you need it. Nice guys do not survive in DC. Even Carter and Bush II have had their moments. Look at Carter and the Wallace voters, or Bush II against McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000. (Karl Rove's "black bastard child".)
    Last edited by Provokatsiya; 28 Sep 15, 16:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve573
    replied
    As for the original post, I too have noticed that it seems to be the standard defense of the left. They do something wrong or even illegal and their defense is either 'the Republicans did it too back when Reagan was in power' or 'the Republicans are just out to get us'. No word on what they did wrong, why they did it, or what they'll do to fix it until it starts to affect their poll numbers, when they feel forced to issue a half-hearted apology. The real issue in my opinion isn't even the emails themselves...it's her contempt for the law and her elitist attitude, as if she can do whatever she wants and the rest of us can just suck on that. If I ever had some confidence that she would make a good president (I never did, but hypothetically 'if') that would have evaporated by now. If she had just come out immediately and said 'I screwed up and I want to be accountable' I think people might be more inclined to let it go, but she would never say that. She's better than the rest of us, and she knows it!

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Provokatsiya View Post
    If good President = good man, among our best would be Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush. The two are not the same thing, especially in the modern era.
    Absolutely agreed there. Rotten people often make the best leaders. Nixon was an absolute POS but a decent President. With Clinton you could take him out of the trailer park but you couldn't get the trailer park out of him...

    LBJ was a very shrewd politician, not the best on policy but he knew how to get what he wanted and a absolutely crude human being.

    What you have to watch for are people who are duplicitous, narcissistic, and ruthless. You don't want them in charge because they will simply use you to get ahead and don't give a rat's patoot about the damage they cause along the way so long as they, themselves, get ahead.
    Hillary is exactly that sort of person.

    Leave a comment:


  • Provokatsiya
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I will note that this thread degraded quickly into defense and explanation of a Red Herring argument.

    The real issue on the table is Bill's defense of his wife's major, illegal, and ongoing screw ups, particularly her illegal use of a private e-mail server.

    "She said she was sorry..." is not a defense especially when it comes after weeks, months, of denying anything so much as improper happened. It's the apology of a serial killer so-to-speak.

    "I'm sorry I did illegal stuff involving (choose the scandal Shrillary was involved in over the years). It won't happen again. It's the weasel words of a scoundrel and her husband's explanation is no better but he's a scoundrel too. Wasn't a bad President just a really personally bad person.

    If good President = good man, among our best would be Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush. The two are not the same thing, especially in the modern era.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Do you plan on discussing the topic, or psychoanalyzing your fellow forum members?

    You yourself have a constant habit of insulting and taunting the other forum members. Is that because of a deep-seated insecurity or do you have other personal image issues?

    Would you like us all to get together and question your motives for every statement you make, or can you just accept that expressing themselves is their privilege?

    Speaking for myself, I see no need to be polite when discussing public figures for whom I have nothing but contempt for their behavior, corruption and incompetence. Respect is earned; it is not the right of anyone, and the price to earn it is incredibly steep.
    Best post ever!

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Calling them names on a military history forum they will never see in their lifetime doesn't accomplish that goal. It must be something a little deeper than that. It suggests hatred of the subject in question. People on the Napoleonic Forum regularly call Napoleon names and he's long dead. I feel people get some sense of satisfaction from bashing political figures and historical figures they simply dislike.
    I don't recall name calling any historical figures, maybe Lincoln who I believe is a bit over rated. The Kennedy's perhaps? I do have a true hatred for Obama and the Clinton's who think they can do anything they like and get away with it. Both believe that the American people are ignorant, with liberal media support they run-a-mock.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    I will note that this thread degraded quickly into defense and explanation of a Red Herring argument.

    The real issue on the table is Bill's defense of his wife's major, illegal, and ongoing screw ups, particularly her illegal use of a private e-mail server.

    "She said she was sorry..." is not a defense especially when it comes after weeks, months, of denying anything so much as improper happened. It's the apology of a serial killer so-to-speak.

    "I'm sorry I did illegal stuff involving (choose the scandal Shrillary was involved in over the years). It won't happen again. It's the weasel words of a scoundrel and her husband's explanation is no better but he's a scoundrel too. Wasn't a bad President just a really personally bad person.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Calling them names on a military history forum they will never see in their lifetime .
    Are you implying that they might see it after their lifetime? Eternal damnation is all very well but being forced to read some posts until the very end of time - dash it all that's going too far.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    What? You can't figure out satire and sarcasm?
    Apparently not since Iíve had several people ask me that question.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Tsar View Post
    The signature at the bottom clearly shows Billy Carter.
    What? You can't figure out satire and sarcasm?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Maybe when he grows up and can keep his trousers zipped I'll stop. Come on, he had a trailer park quality beer named after him too...





    Too bad for them. I don't complain when the Europeans or other nationalities on this board use terminology that is odd or unfamiliar to me. I'll ask if I need or want an explanation.
    The signature at the bottom clearly shows Billy Carter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Maybe when he grows up and can keep his trousers zipped I'll stop. Come on, he had a trailer park quality beer named after him too...





    Too bad for them. I don't complain when the Europeans or other nationalities on this board use terminology that is odd or unfamiliar to me. I'll ask if I need or want an explanation.
    Just sating my curiosity.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    What about "Billy boy"?
    Maybe when he grows up and can keep his trousers zipped I'll stop. Come on, he had a trailer park quality beer named after him too...



    Why do you feel the need to use something other than their names? People who aren't familiar with English or are political scene might simply have no idea what you're going on about.
    Too bad for them. I don't complain when the Europeans or other nationalities on this board use terminology that is odd or unfamiliar to me. I'll ask if I need or want an explanation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Calling them names on a military history forum they will never see in their lifetime doesn't accomplish that goal. It must be something a little deeper than that. It suggests hatred of the subject in question. People on the Napoleonic Forum regularly call Napoleon names and he's long dead. I feel people get some sense of satisfaction from bashing political figures and historical figures they simply dislike.
    Do you plan on discussing the topic, or psychoanalyzing your fellow forum members?

    You yourself have a constant habit of insulting and taunting the other forum members. Is that because of a deep-seated insecurity or do you have other personal image issues?

    Would you like us all to get together and question your motives for every statement you make, or can you just accept that expressing themselves is their privilege?

    Speaking for myself, I see no need to be polite when discussing public figures for whom I have nothing but contempt for their behavior, corruption and incompetence. Respect is earned; it is not the right of anyone, and the price to earn it is incredibly steep.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I use it for Hillary singularly. I have called Obama Obama the Ignorant as a sort of noble title since he does act like a monarch some of the time. They aren't used to "hurt" them but rather to point out traits about them:

    Gorebal Warming: A modification of Al Gore's last name as he is attached indelibly to Global Warming.

    Shrillary: Because she is shrill and often vindictive according to everything I read on her.

    Obama the Ignorant: Because he has proved repeatedly to be. How many times has he not been aware of something important going on in his administration, usually something impacting it negatively?

    So, I am using them to point out something about them and their character.
    What about "Billy boy"?

    Why do you feel the need to use something other than their names? People who aren't familiar with English or are political scene might simply have no idea what you're going on about.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X