You are wrong.

And yes, she's fat. Not an in-your-face kind've fat like, say...Aretha Franklin or the late Mama Cass.

She's got what many of us gals have (yours truly included)...an ass & thigh problem.

Have you really never heard a woman referred to as a 'cow'?

Still interesting, though...mine are STILL the only posts you've responded to (and in quite a sarcastic manner the second time, I must say). God bless ya...you never let me down.



But back to important stuff...since many of us have answered your question in detail, what is it YOU dislike about Hillary?

Apple

Yeah, your posts are the only ones I respond to..,yours and JJ's, and Don Cardi's, and Smitty's and fathersson's and Snake's......At least you're in good company

I'm afraid you think too highly of yourself.

Your posts are, however, very often the most fun to respond to. Almost as much fun for me as replying to fathersson.

OK....go ahead and insert your obligatory "you pressed my buttons, I didn't disappoint you, blah, blah, blah....." comment here:__________________.

Seems to me my last "pig post" pressed yours quickly enough.

Yeah, I know, you pressed my buttons, I didn't disappoint you, blah, blah, blah.....

Why don't you give it a rest already? Those comments add nothing to the discussion.

Now, to answer your questions...

Yes, I've heard women referred to as "cows", but I was never quite sure what was meant by the reference. I laways kinda thought that it had something to do with a cow's udders, but I wasn't sure.

If I did know, I wouldn't have asked.

And why do I dislike Hillary?

I prefer that those who hold public office have a bit of a resume first. I thought that she was a carpetbagger with no reason whatsover to represent New York State in the Senate, totally lacking in experience, and who rode into office strictly based on the fact that she was a woman and her name.

And since she's been in office, she's done nothing at all to make me think that she's qualified for the office that she now holds, much less a higher one.

thought I'd weigh-in on the topic.

On Dec. 29, 2004, I wrote:

As my Senator I want to know what she's done for NY. I think it's a sad commentary that our country thinks so highly of her. This woman compromised all of her integrity and pride to get herself elected. Her "stand by her man" was just a farce to get elected.

Before Pres. Bill left office, he pardoned several Jewish criminals charged with scamming millions of dollars from the state on phony education aid. Ironically, the sect they belonged to voted 99.9 % for Hillary.

Same reason you don't apparently...too much fun!!

I'm afraid I don't even recall that 'pig' post you refer to, so if in your opinion it pushed any buttons I guess it didn't push too hard.



Nice try, plaw...you keep plugging at the 'clever comeback' thing. Someday, you might reach Level 2.

But hey, thanks for your answers re Hillary.

Until tomorrow...

Thinking 'too highly' of myself,
Apple

I think it's interesting that, of all the people here who have posted their reasons for disliking Senator Clinton, it is Don Cardi and Don Cardi only who seemed to answer with any logic or rational analysis. Others here simply referred to her as being a bitch, compared her to various farm animals, or talked about her alleged propensity towards lesbianism. Then of course, there was her fat ass, her "dyke look", and her plastered on make-up.

I have met her, I did find her far more attractive in person than in photos (although that classifies me as Mrs. Magoo, I guess), well-versed in the topic at hand, intelligent, charming, disarming and well-spoken. Does that mean I would vote for her? I think it would depend on who was running against her.

As for Nita Lowey, Apple, I don't believe her withdrawing quietly from any political race would qualify as her being "crushed" by Mrs. Clinton. I think that it comes down to who the DNC believes has the best shot at winning, and that's who gets the war chest. I'm sure that Ms. Lowey realized that it would hopeless for her to continue, and she made the decision not to go forward. Similar to DA Pirro's recent switch from the Senate race to running for AG.

It was this one:

Apparently you don't have much a memory, since you replied to it about 20 minutes after I made it. Today. Less than three hours ago.

I call that a "button pushed".

Now let me correct myself:

I never want to you to "give it a rest".

Having my fun with you is too much fun.

But PLEASE...come up with something original already besides how you push my buttons.

I know that you do. That's what responding in these political discussions is all about.

Snake pushes my buttons with his views on religion. Don Smitty does with his blind love for President Bush.

Patrick pushes Don Cardi's buttons all the time, and what's more I believe that he knows he does, knows how he does it, and does it on pupose.

And you push my buttons because you, um, you just ....well, you push them just by being yourself.

Believe me, I don't mind the sarcastic personal sniping. God knows I'm more than guilty of doing that myself.

But at least I try to be original with each snipe. Not the same old thing every time.

Snipe all you want. I enjoy it. But again, PLEASE come up with something original already.

I guess that goes to show you that people have many DIFFERENT reasons for disliking Hillary. All personal

Is one reason better then another. No, I think you could say anything and it would be YOUR reason for disliking her and you would be answering the question stated in the tread title.

And the question WAS why each person disliked Hillary Clinton right?

The question wasn't what we liked about Hillary Clinton or are people wrong about Hillary Clinton.

I didn't know our answer had to stand up and be justified by others.

You know I don't like some companies because of their commercials that they play one hundred times a day. So many times that I would never buy their products if my life depended on it. That reason may not be good enough for some people, but it sure sounds good for me and my buying dollars.

Like I said there are no right answers when you are giving your personal views. Everyone see things in a different view and that is fine with me, and thank God, it is that way.

Actually I was just kidding about her being a tough lady, the "wife with balls" kind, which is generally considered not to be the most attractive kind (and most likely to be cheated on)! Seriously, while I definitely like Bill Clinton and sympathized with him (BTW, Apple, what's the big deal in perjury about his own damn private life??? ), I'm rather indifferent about her. However I'd be glad if she is the first woman to become President of the USA. It'd be fun to see how Bill behaves in the First Husband role.

So am I Lavi. Very indifferent. I'm not buying dollars recently anyway. Shouldn't we rather pity her than dislike?

I know that in the past, Lavinia, you've expressed your amazement and a lack of understanding regarding the puritanical views that many Americans seem to have about sex, and I'm inclined to agree with you.

And if you told me that no self-respecting Italian male with a little wealth and power doesn't have a mistress, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised.

But perjury is a different issue.

President Clinton made numerous public pronouncements in which he denied a sexual involvement with not only Monica Lewinsky, but with other women as well.

While many of these statements, as later events came to show, were lies, they did not constitute perjury.

Perjury occurs when you lie under oath - when you've sworn to tell the truth in a court of law, for example, or before a Congressional hearing or a Grand Jury.

And while I could be mistaken here (it's been a while), I believe that Mr. Clinton was accused of committing perjury in his testimony in response to a lawsuit brought against him for sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee for while he was Governor, and again - while I don't believe that his private sex life was anyone's business in the first place since he broke no laws that I am aware of - in his testimony before a Grand Jury investigating, among other things, his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

In other words, I don't think it was anyone's business what he did with Monica Lewinsky as long as he committed no crimes, but since he was under oath he had an obligation to be truthful.

There is, however, a fairly good "strictly speaking legal argument" ( YOU CAN READ IT HERE ) that can be made that he did not commit perjury.

I just realized something. I didn't re-read every post, and a couple (including myself) said they didn't hate Hillary, but I don't believe one person said they would vote for her. Does this mean that we (right & left) actually agree on one political issue??? See, we can all get along. :p

Oh, and PLaw, just want to tell you what a great debator you are. I wouldn't have known that you "Hated" Hillary until this thread, but it's a real talent being able to reason and look at both sides of the issues. For instance, instead of starting a "I Hate Hillary" thread, you start a "why do you dislike Hillary", being open to both sides of the argument before expressing your views. In my opinion you remain cool & calm and are willing to see and understand both sides of the issues. Not easy for most of us.

TIS

Thank you so much for the compliment, TIS. You've made my day.

This thread was inspired,of course, by the "Hillary in 2008" thread (and others), in which I was was struck by how little substance the reasons given for disliking Ms. Clinton seemed to have.

As fathersson correctly points out, anyone is entitled to like or dislike a politician for any reason that they wish, but when we gang up on President Bush the reasons that we give for disliking him at least almost always have more substance than saying that "He's funny looking" or comparing him to a barnyard animal, even if his supporters don't agree with our reasons.

But I must confess that I have to agree with Sicilian Babe's argument of a few days ago (which, sadly, I was absent for): That a large part of the dislike of Ms. Clinton is caused by the fact that she's a woman, and calling her a "bitch" or a "cow" or a "pig" and referring to her only by her first name is, I believe, illustrative of that fact.

Now, I know why I don't like her, and it has nothing to do with the way she looks, but I was really curious to see what reasons people would come up with for disliking her when asked for other reasons than the ones I quoted at the start of the thread.

And while many came up with good ones, apparently some (who shall remain nameless) still felt compelled to once again make the invidious comparison between her and a four-legged animal. :rolleyes:

why pity? Many wives are cheated on by their husbands but they are never offered a eight years stay in the White House in return.... :p

FS, Feel free to dislike her all you want for whatever reason you want. Personally, I like to make my political choices based on a reason of some substance, and perhaps you don't. I was merely pointing out that most people seemed to dislike her on an irrational and strictly emotional level, which once again makes me believe that it has something to do with her being an intelligent and aggressive female.

And her argument of today as well

oh, I see. Well, in that case, I agree it's a total different case...


that is precisely what I'll never be able to understand. Why a Grand Jury had to investigate his affair with Ms Lewinsky.

I understand your point now, Plaw. And I agree. I still can't see why on earth he had to be under oath just because of his personal sex life, since he committed no crime. But I agree that once he had to because the legal/constitutional (?) system permits this, he should have been truthful. Ok, I'll be truthful myself. I found Clinton at the time he was in his office to have a very powerful if primitive erotic energy. In other words I found him to be pretty sexy. If I were a stagist at the White House and had the chance to work for him, I doubt I would have resisted him.....

why pity? Many wives are cheated on by their husbands but they are never offered a eight years stay in the White House in return.... :p [/b][/quote]It's just an offer, it isn't guaranteed. Besides, rare women are cheated in such a way - I mean - it isn't very pleasant to hear people discussing it on every TV channel. And anyway being married to BC - can't make anyone happy, I guess.

I just know the "Right" will love this. It is funny. So here, have your laughs. Just for you.

HILLARY'S FIRST NIGHT AS PRESIDENT in January 2009

Hillary Clinton gets elected President and is spending her first night in
the White House. She has waited so long..........The ghost of George
Washington appears, and Hillary says, "How can I best serve my country?"

Washington says, "Never tell a lie."

"Ouch!" Says Hillary,! "I don't know about that."

The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson appears... Hillary says, "How
can I best serve my country?" Jefferson says,

"Listen to the people."

"Ohhh! I really don't want to do that."

On the third night, the ghost of Abe Lincoln appears...Hillary says, "How
can I best serve my country?"

Lincoln says, "Go to the theater."


TIS

Time out - if you had bothered to look in the other thread where we have discussed this, I've mentioned some reasons that revolve around her taxation policies, pro-choice stance, and personal character, all of which I think are excellent reasons that follow "logic or rational analysis."

Thanks,
DJ

No, that didn't push any buttons, didn't bother me. Why would it? I did reply to it, though. I hope you don't think that just because someone replies to a statement or question that it means you've pushed their buttons.

I will this once do something 'original' and not bother to respond to the rest. You get WAY too emotional and lose focus...and it's kind've boring after a while. Who can keep up with these rants???

Enough 'button-pushing', it's lost it's luster for now. I'll leave you alone for a bit and give you the last word, I know you need to have it.

It's a shame though, because you DID start and interesting discussion about Hillary. I'll move on to that.

Sicilian Babe...your statement that DC was the only one to provide a 'rational' reply is completely incorrect. Go back and read the responses from TIS and Don Jasani, among others. Also, if Hillary had not decided to run in NY, it may very well have been Ms. Lowey who got that war chest, and since NY is highly Democratic, would probably have won the seat (that is, once Guliani withdrew for health reasons). Lowey backed out knowing she nor anyone else would stand a chance against Hillary in a primary. So although a bad word was never said about her, she was never smeared in a campaign, she was most certianly crushed by Mrs. Clinton.

Apple

Yeesh...I almost missed that one!!

Perjury is perjury. You are lying under oath. It is a crime. Subject is of little importance.

And by the way...Bill's affair w/ Monica may have at the time been part of his 'private life', but once it became an issue in the Paula Jones lawsuit it was no longer a private matter. He swore an oath to tell the truth, and knowingly did not.

That's why he was impeached.

That's why he lost his law license for however many years it was suspended (anyone know if he's got it back yet?).

Were it not for that blue dress, he'd have gotten away with his crime and we'd all be in ignorant bliss today. But that was not to be the case.

So that's what the big deal is.

Apple

JJ - I was referring to what had been posted here , which is why I posted here and not in any other thread. However, I would certainly agree that your reasons do follow logic, even if I don't agree with your views.

Apple - I believe that the word "crush" implies that the Senator ruthlessly set out to destroy Nita Lowey and her political aspirations. Just because the DNC decided to back the candidate that had the best chance of winning, that would hardly qualify.

The word 'crush' implies whatever you want it to. It doesn't necessarily have to mean 'ruthlessly set out to destroy'. It can be done in quiet, subtle ways. Once Pat Moynihan announced he'd not run for another term, the field was open and Nita Lowey was far more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve in the U.S. Senate representing the State of NY. If for whatever reason the DNC decided to BACK Hillary and requested Lowey to back off, then Lowey was most certainly crushed. Quietly and efficiently crushed. Of course, she put up a brave face and fully backed Clinton in all the interviews she gave (and that I saw) after pulling out. But that's called going along party lines. She had to do it.

Apple

No, that didn't push any buttons, didn't bother me. Why would it? I did reply to it, though. I hope you don't think that just because someone replies to a statement or question that it means you've pushed their buttons.[/quote][/b]

All my statement you quoted above referred to was the fact that you didn't "recall" my "pig post"

I was merely pointing out that you responded to it within about 20 minutes, so I didn't see how you didn't "recall" it

Actually, considering the circumstances and its context and all, I thought it was rather memorable, myself.

And, yes. When it comes to these political discussions, I "do think that just because someone replies to a statement or question that it means you've pushed their buttons"

That's what I keep telling you. Perhaps you missed it when I made that very point in another post. I agree with you. All of the responses in these politial discussions in which people disagree are about pushed buttons. Apparently you seem to think so also, because otherwise why would you keep responding?

Anyway, calling me "WAY too emotional" in these threads is about as silly as it gets, and calling my posts "rants"? :rolleyes:

Who displays less emotion in these discussions than me?

To quote my dear friend Sicilian Babe: "PUH-leeze"

And, of course, if you find my posts boring, especially the ones that apply to you, I would suggest that you simply not read them.

I am glad, though, to hear that the "button-pushing" riff of yours has lost whatever luster it may have once had and you're ready to move on to something original.

And thanks for letting me have the last word. I appreciate it.

Actually, I would have to say "crush" now implies what I'm feeling for Plaw, because I am positively weak-kneed for a man that quotes me. Although he didn't call me Babe .

Babe. BABE. BABE





(We better watch ourselves here before we have Apple throwing up all over the place)
.....................

Who said that we are making political choices this way?

The topic of THIS thread was " Why you dislike Hillary Clinton?"and that is what some of us posted about.

So your cutting remarks are uncalled for.


And just for the record, we don't fear or dislike "intelligent and aggressive females" We just dislike fake, bitchy, lying, do nothing people, who run for political positions in our state. Some of us can look past that fake smile and so called charm that she hides behind.

In fact why did she come here to New York State to run, when she hadn't been involved before. Could it be the high profile power state of New York looked like it would be a good stepping stone for the Whitehouse. After all, most of what she has been doing is grandstanding since she got here. Putting her nose into everything, but getting nothing done.

After watching the State of the Union, you can now tell that Hillary is in her attack mode. Look out America, Hillary is on the move.

yes, now I see the difference between a lie and a perjury. Thanks for the explanation, Apple. Just a side consideration. I still believe Bill Clinton was a bit of a "victim" because of his office. Had he been a plumber, an accountant, a postman and not the most powerful man in the world, I guess he wouldn't have been sued for sexual harassment or whatever the charge was nor a blue spotted dress would have been kept uncleaned. Which is disgusting, IMO. He just behaved like 99,99% of men would under the same circumstances, lies included. Trouble is he happened to be the President of the USA and this changes the pattern dramatically.

FS, My point was that there didn't seem much basis for the dislike that I saw expressed. Most of the remarks seemed to be about her appearance or what people perceived as her attitude. I saw very few posts that mentioned things like her political views, her ideals, her voting record - which is what I thought was unusual, and, therefore, without logic or rationale. And that I why I still feel that the reason most people dislike her is based on her gender. I think if someone asked me why I don't like President Bush, and I answered, "Because his ears stick out and he can't pronounce the word nuclear," those would seem like silly reasons.

Plaw - as for you, instead of ROTFLing, we would have Apple ROLFING???

Gosh, you do go on & on...you sure do know how to brighten up a glum Tuesday morning!!

Actually, I really didnt' recall it until after you used your 'cut & paste' of quotes hobby to remind me. Then I recalled it...serioulsy though, it didn't make an impression. Hope your not taking too much pride in that one statement.

Gosh...this is getting to be fun again! I can push your buttons even when I'm trying NOT to push them!!

I think it's cute that you have the lib ladies falling all over you w/ regard to your online manner. Don't worry, I won't puke over it.

Oh, and sorry 'bout that 'last word' thing. I took it back...unless of course you have another novel in store to reply to THIS post.

Back to Hillary...

Apple