Hillary: Pros and Cons, Facts and Fiction

Remove all ads!

Um... Isnt' your standard a bit unreasonable here Drew? I'd like to think that the ones we know about are the ones that get caught, and the ones that we don't know about are the ones that don't get caught. If they haven't got caught, then how could anyone supply the proof that they are cheating the system? How else would we know? The only ones that make the paper are the ones who actually GOT CAUGHT.

 

Yep, six people defrauded the government coffers of slightly more than one-hundred-twenty-eight thousand dollars over a period of five years. That's a total of $21,359.67 for each of the accused (and I'm going to assume they're guilty; I doubt a U.S Attorney would bother bringing charges without a sufficient case for wrong-doing), or $4271.94 per person per year. Still Grand Theft in most criminal codes, but hardly the 'capturing of a criminal kingpin responsible for millions' that the media and public tend to prefer.

I hope their trial is speedy and that they DO have to repay the amounts defrauded - justice requires restitution for theft; as for prison term or fine, I can't make my mind up about that - but then I'm not the sentencing judge.

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume your opponent is the ignorant one -- until you can show it isn't you." - M. L. Plano

I'd be willing to attribute this mess more to well-meaning incompetence (i.e. the "ignorance" of above in the relevant 'public service' flacks not knowing WHAT to do to fix the original problem, then doing something that fails in the attempt, creating more problems) than anything else; an act of premeditated duplicity on the part of the government seems doubtful...

 

Six people stole 128k over 5 years.

That works out to 4.2k per person per year.

This is the sort of thing we need to scrap welfare because of?

Color me unconvinced.

 

Yes, of course, they were the only people defrauding the system. I withdraw my argument. Please send me $4.2K (US preferred, but I'll take Euros)

 

That's not the point, Ghoul. Of course people scam the system. The point is that a few jerks scamming the system are not a reason to scrap the program all together, but to fix what's broken so that the few (and they are very few) who are able to scam the system do so rarely if at all and are caught and punished quickly. Your position is like saying that just because people speed and don't get caught that we should get rid of the freeways.

And again - This is supposed to be about Hillary, guys - I started a new topic on welfare, please continue this there.

 

That's about how long we've had the Iraq War. And of course all that govenment welfare for Halli. But no takers on that point. What was that about all those plane loads of cash that our Republican govenment flew over to Iraq? And to do what? Build schools, provide healthcare for Iraqis, all that "welfare" stuff. All the things that the American poor have been asking for from their own govenment for years? What is that called? Irony? No it's really something much worse. But really, you too funny, man...

 

Bumpety bump...

Hillary said something recently that I find a point of particular concern. To me this embodies a very large part of the problem people have with her.

"Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

The first part (unbold) of course I get. Thanks to the Republicans' reckless fiscal policies and unprecedented debt spending, the raising of taxes in the next decade are essentially inevitable. But it's the last part that gets me. I'm willing to believe that it was an unfortunate choice of words on her part, but somehow I doubt it from someone as calculated as Hillary.

Is one quote enough to condemn someone? Of course not. I just wanted to get the discussion back on track. Even if you're a liberal, where do you stand on this?

Discuss.

 

@DR

It is quotes like that, that convince that the Democrats have no chance in 2008. Hillary may be beloved by the far left, but she is such a polarizing candidate that I don't see how she can compete in a general election. My dad, who is a Kennedy Democrat admitted to me this week that he is in a bind. He can't see himself voting for either Hillary or Obama. I almost fainted when he said he may end up voting for Fred Thompson (if he runs). This from a man who has never voted for a Republican in his life and is a resident of Florida (the state that determines the presidency).

 

I would like to think it was an unfortunate choice of words. However, to the contrary I think that one quite IS enough to condemn someone. Allow me to refer you to this quote:

Who said that? John Kerry in 2004. And it was that single statement that was used by Team Bush - over and over again - to characterize John Kerry as a flip-flopper for the entire election process. And it worked. I think one poorly timed quote actually CAN condemn someone. I think that single quote would make the short list of "Reasons Kerry lost the '04 election."

 

To be fair, they were calling him a flip-flopper long before that. Which makes me particularly angry at Kerry for making the mother of all gaffs and giving them the ammunition. But replace "condemn" with "use against them ad nauseum" and I think we're in agreement. When I said "condemn," I was referring more to a person going from "I like her!" to "oh, she's terrible" after one sentence kind of thing. Which, sadly, is all it seems to take for some people.

 

Dude, the far left hates Hillary. She voted for the war. When given a choice between big business and the little guy, she tends to side with big business. Her environmental record sucks. Her proposed medical reform was a disaster. So, she's pro-choice. Big deal. Giuliani is also pro-choice. Is he a far-left liberal?

 

Um. The government already takes things from you for the common good: taxes.

 

Aye, that's what a (remotely) communal society does; pool the resources of its individuals for the benefit of all. We take some of your stuff so that we can do things to help everyone in a way that no one person could do for themselves on their own. Roads, water purification, flood control (see Army Corps of Engineers), organized and standardized medicine, standardized building of shelter, standardized business practices, founding of laws and enforcement of same, protection of citizens from law breakers, both within and without...

ANYWAY, I didn't have much of a problem with the essence of the quote; it was just conveyed in a rather tactless, 'shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-that's-in-your-mouth) way.

 

What an incredibly telling statement...even more telling for never being addressed by anyone else here.

The election is still over a year away. The field hasn't even been set on the Republican side, we have absolutely no idea who might jump in as an Independent/3rd party candidate, and even though you claim that she isn't your first choice you state that you will vote for her if nominated.

Taking this statement at face value logic tells us 2 things...1 that you have already made up your list of who you will vote for and 2 that they are all Democrats, at least as far down the list as Hillary goes, so either you have a long list of Democrats, or Hillary is your 2nd choice.

Given all that, I am not as shocked by that as the acceptance of the statement by this group. As much as the statement tells us, the lack of response to it tells us far more.

But then we already knew what it tells us, so why do I even bother pointing it out?

 

And you wont vote for whatever candidate the Republicans put out? I dont know about you but I knwo that I vote more for parties than for persons.

 

Nope, I vote for people. IMO party line voting is for the lazy and is in large measure the reason why we have many of the problems we have here. It may work out ok in other nations...I am only speaking for the US.

That said, unless Jeb enters the race and wins the nomination, I don't foresee any chance of me ever voting for Hillary. The statements about her total disregard for the "rabble" is completely true (she even disrespected our troops by making Marines into appetizer servers at the White House, and regularly cussed out Secret Service agents) and Chandos' displeasure with her for supporting the war is misplaced...she supported the war because it was popular at the time, and Hillary is a slave to the polls. I vote for people based upon their core values, and I expect consistency, or I want a rational and logical explanation as to why they make any major reversals of positions. Hillary's only excuse for changing her positions was to blame it all on W. Sorry but Hillary owns this one too and I would have had a little more respect for her if she either admitted she was mistaken, or at least stated that she believed that the war could have been won, but that we just didn't do it right.

Now before we have the debate again about "shouldn't politicians do what the polls say people want done" the answer is, not always. Polls can reflect emotion, not rational thought. Politicians should be leaders, and that means having the vision to see through the haze of emotion and leadership to make hard decisions that are based upon what is best for their constituents in the long term. Their positions should be consistent, and not waiver every day based upon what will get them the least flak and get them elected/re-elected.

 

Considering the political power of the president to set policies in US without complete support of the party and the fact that the president is considered the leader of that party, it makes a lot more sense to vote for a person than a party, since the party would not be able to control the president anyway.

As far as Hillary is concerned I don't follow her moves that much but she seems to be a political opportunist and definently would not be my first preference to presidency but she's miles better than most of the current republican candidates.

 

When Kerry made that statement, it was in a heated response to a Repulican heckler in the audience. That is one of the reasons why GWB often speaks at invitation only rallies.

The bad thing about the Kerry remark is not that it was silly (it was), it was the way the spin operatives played it all over the media, and spun it into a theme. They will do the same with any of the Democrats, and they will all have that kind of moment. The Repubicians make the same kinds of silly comments, but no cares. GW made countless idiot-like comments, but they got such little play in the media, and no one cared anyway.

Once a so-called "leader" decides to ignore the American people, they always have the recourse of throwing him/her out of office. The idea that "leaders know best" has merit in particular instances - such as defending the Constitution, or the core principles of the nation. But it is the people who are the ultimate "deciders."