The HDRkid Thread
- Thread starter RainmanTime
- Start date
- Status
recall15
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Then they find the portals and the aliens...
The Star Gate program not the TV and Movies...
including SUN STREAK, GRILL FLAME, and CENTER LANE by DIA and INSCOM, and SCANATE by CIA
more here
They RV the Moon, Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn for lost Civilizations and Stargates
--
Best Regards
Jaques Vallee RV`s /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Then they find the portals and the aliens...
The Star Gate program not the TV and Movies...
including SUN STREAK, GRILL FLAME, and CENTER LANE by DIA and INSCOM, and SCANATE by CIA
more here
They RV the Moon, Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn for lost Civilizations and Stargates
--
Best Regards
Jaques Vallee RV`s /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
recall15
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
These where called "soul Traps" but there was a matter of time that the Soviets learn about that the "Resonance" was the key to go out of the Jail...
Then they move to a active/pasive telsa coils switch...
--
Best Regards
Telsa Coil -Resonance- /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif
These where called "soul Traps" but there was a matter of time that the Soviets learn about that the "Resonance" was the key to go out of the Jail...
Then they move to a active/pasive telsa coils switch...
--
Best Regards
Telsa Coil -Resonance- /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
To Darby:
All you do is troll through my hundreds of predictions and find the one or two that did not come true. I predicted that the falling dollar would cause a bigger trade deficit because we would have to pay more for imports. The debunkers said that a falling dollar would help make our trade deficit smaller because it would make american goods more competitive.
Ben Bernake is wrong, we are in a recession and going deeper as we speak. The fed is getting ready to cut interest rates again. Bad idea since the dollar is in freefall and gold just broke 900. The cut in interest rates will NOT bail out the banks.
My predictions about mortgage meltdown and the declining prioes of real estate have all come true. The foreclosure rate is rising like a rocket to the asteroids. There are blocks and blocks of empty houses with overgrown lawns and green pools like I predicted.
But why are we here? Well, I blame debunkers. We have plenty of oil in the form of oil shale, more than Saudi Arabia, but debunkers laugh and say "IMPOSSIBLE" to extracting it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html
How can we be in this mess over in Iraq when we are the ones with the oil? Well, it is more easy to laugh at new ideas and make fun of new approaches rather than the heavy lifting of producing a new product.
Back in 1997 when Toyota came out with the Prius hybrid car the boys at GM made fun of "TOY" hybrids. Now they will see Toyota become the number one automaker in the world while they lose market share. This year 2008 Ratan Tata of Tata Motor in India unleashed the $2500 Tata Nano car which gets 50mpg.
Why don't General Motors have a sub $3000 car to compete with the $10,000 Toyota Yaris? BTW the Tata Nano looks a lot like a Toyota Yaris. Instead of a GM econocar we have huge Hummers. GM is full of debunkers who love to laugh at new ideas, the result is that last year they lost 39 billion dollars.
Here is a list of links from mainstream media backing up my predictions!
http://hdrkid.bravehost.com/listoflinksjan11.htm
To Rain:
hang on to your hat, we are in for some interesting times ahead. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
To Darby:
All you do is troll through my hundreds of predictions and find the one or two that did not come true. I predicted that the falling dollar would cause a bigger trade deficit because we would have to pay more for imports. The debunkers said that a falling dollar would help make our trade deficit smaller because it would make american goods more competitive.
Ben Bernake is wrong, we are in a recession and going deeper as we speak. The fed is getting ready to cut interest rates again. Bad idea since the dollar is in freefall and gold just broke 900. The cut in interest rates will NOT bail out the banks.
My predictions about mortgage meltdown and the declining prioes of real estate have all come true. The foreclosure rate is rising like a rocket to the asteroids. There are blocks and blocks of empty houses with overgrown lawns and green pools like I predicted.
But why are we here? Well, I blame debunkers. We have plenty of oil in the form of oil shale, more than Saudi Arabia, but debunkers laugh and say "IMPOSSIBLE" to extracting it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002463368_oilstudy01.html
How can we be in this mess over in Iraq when we are the ones with the oil? Well, it is more easy to laugh at new ideas and make fun of new approaches rather than the heavy lifting of producing a new product.
Back in 1997 when Toyota came out with the Prius hybrid car the boys at GM made fun of "TOY" hybrids. Now they will see Toyota become the number one automaker in the world while they lose market share. This year 2008 Ratan Tata of Tata Motor in India unleashed the $2500 Tata Nano car which gets 50mpg.
Why don't General Motors have a sub $3000 car to compete with the $10,000 Toyota Yaris? BTW the Tata Nano looks a lot like a Toyota Yaris. Instead of a GM econocar we have huge Hummers. GM is full of debunkers who love to laugh at new ideas, the result is that last year they lost 39 billion dollars.
Here is a list of links from mainstream media backing up my predictions!
http://hdrkid.bravehost.com/listoflinksjan11.htm
To Rain:
hang on to your hat, we are in for some interesting times ahead. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
It would be great if all the money used for war was instead used for new energy sources, but that's not reality. It's about access to ALL sources and rationing. The Middle East is rich in oil, especially the Persian Gulf.
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
It would be great if all the money used for war was instead used for new energy sources, but that's not reality. It's about access to ALL sources and rationing. The Middle East is rich in oil, especially the Persian Gulf.
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
lol.
I have no idea what happens if someone dies in that particular room. All I know is that they build these rooms to keep transmission leaks from escaping, not mentioning preventing people honing into that particular room.
If you have worked for the govt for a long time, you would see so many things that we all think is impossible. The first thing I have noticed, several friends of mine, they were cheerful people before they went to work for gov and several years later after they went into service they change completely. Its almost like a total personality change. Things they have seen, they realize that they cannot share it with the world because no one will ever believe them anyway.
This thought makes them impatient, irritable, and emotional. Seeking out a way to express their emotions while hiding it from a world full of skeptics. There are many things on earth which we cannot account for nor explain. The people with the "personality change" obviously have seen things which the majority of us have not.
On a point of a view, I do believe in a form of "remote viewing", because I have witnessed people go through a total personality change, including myself. Its like the old indians back then, they take rituals and everything on a personal level, even they too, change within.
One time, I had a little "RV" going and I was witnessing people doing things that they didnt want other people to know. These things kept me going for a quite a while and I realized that it could be a potential possibility to know a person before even meeting them.
However, it became a habit. Knowing things about people before even meeting them???? Also by talking to people, knowing things they dont want me to know??? What the heck is this? Why is it effecting me. I shouldnt be doing things like this.. this isnt NORMAL...
This also goes to computers as well. I tend to know how to fix them like a natural. Programs etc..
But.. who cares eh?
lol.
I have no idea what happens if someone dies in that particular room. All I know is that they build these rooms to keep transmission leaks from escaping, not mentioning preventing people honing into that particular room.
If you have worked for the govt for a long time, you would see so many things that we all think is impossible. The first thing I have noticed, several friends of mine, they were cheerful people before they went to work for gov and several years later after they went into service they change completely. Its almost like a total personality change. Things they have seen, they realize that they cannot share it with the world because no one will ever believe them anyway.
This thought makes them impatient, irritable, and emotional. Seeking out a way to express their emotions while hiding it from a world full of skeptics. There are many things on earth which we cannot account for nor explain. The people with the "personality change" obviously have seen things which the majority of us have not.
On a point of a view, I do believe in a form of "remote viewing", because I have witnessed people go through a total personality change, including myself. Its like the old indians back then, they take rituals and everything on a personal level, even they too, change within.
One time, I had a little "RV" going and I was witnessing people doing things that they didnt want other people to know. These things kept me going for a quite a while and I realized that it could be a potential possibility to know a person before even meeting them.
However, it became a habit. Knowing things about people before even meeting them???? Also by talking to people, knowing things they dont want me to know??? What the heck is this? Why is it effecting me. I shouldnt be doing things like this.. this isnt NORMAL...
This also goes to computers as well. I tend to know how to fix them like a natural. Programs etc..
But.. who cares eh?
Darby
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Gosh. Sorry about that. I should have looked for a more informed source for your predictions rather than looking on your blog for a post by you where you made your predictions for 2007.
And, BTW, I didn't point out "one or two" missed predictions. In that one post you made 11 predictions. You got 6 entirely wrong. I gave you a break on the three trivial/truistic "predictions" and gave you three hits. The other two marked "neither" were silly. More men on bikes? A real estate sell-off with no buyers? That one is wrong on its face. I gave you a break.
I even gave you another accidental break. You actually made 12 predictions. In the silly "More men on bikes" section you also said that people would spend less money. That one was also completely wrong. People didn't spend less money in 2007 than in 2006. The economy grew by 5% in 2007. An economy can only grow if people spend more money.
The reality is that of the twelve predictions the three that I gave you hits on were so trivial that they couldn't be clasified as predictions. As I said, they were truisms. That leaves nine predictions of which you got 7 entirely wrong and two that were "neither".
And your response didn't address "Coke Blaque". I'd really like to see your post that predated the public announcement by Coca-Cola (circa November 2005) where you predicted the name of the new beverage. You did, afterall, make a big deal of your having made a close call on the actual product name "Coke Blak".
URL link, please.
Gosh. Sorry about that. I should have looked for a more informed source for your predictions rather than looking on your blog for a post by you where you made your predictions for 2007.
And, BTW, I didn't point out "one or two" missed predictions. In that one post you made 11 predictions. You got 6 entirely wrong. I gave you a break on the three trivial/truistic "predictions" and gave you three hits. The other two marked "neither" were silly. More men on bikes? A real estate sell-off with no buyers? That one is wrong on its face. I gave you a break.
I even gave you another accidental break. You actually made 12 predictions. In the silly "More men on bikes" section you also said that people would spend less money. That one was also completely wrong. People didn't spend less money in 2007 than in 2006. The economy grew by 5% in 2007. An economy can only grow if people spend more money.
The reality is that of the twelve predictions the three that I gave you hits on were so trivial that they couldn't be clasified as predictions. As I said, they were truisms. That leaves nine predictions of which you got 7 entirely wrong and two that were "neither".
And your response didn't address "Coke Blaque". I'd really like to see your post that predated the public announcement by Coca-Cola (circa November 2005) where you predicted the name of the new beverage. You did, afterall, make a big deal of your having made a close call on the actual product name "Coke Blak".
URL link, please.
Darby
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Kid,
Just a follow-up to the last post:
If you had been making these predictions by saying all along that you follow the news, check out the financials and try to figure out where events are headed then I would have no real problem with you. You'd still be wrong most of the time and most of your predictions would still fall in the trivial category... but I'd give you credit for making the attempt. Wall Street professionals blow it all the time - and they get paid good money to make those misques.
But you insist that you're some sort of quasi time traveler, still get it wrong virtually all the time, you have a paranoid streak a mile wide and come across in your posts as a immature juvenile with delusions of grandeur. I'm sorry if that assessment annoys you but it's fair, factual and shared by the majority.
I'll add this, too. I'm pretty much convinced at this time that you are not Jen. It's still quite curious that everytime she went out of town you went out of town. When she returned home you returned home. Not just generally but the exact same dates. She's from Seattle and your IP was from Seattle during that time frame. Equally curious is how you made the UseNet post about Robbie using Jen's email account. But as I said, I don't believe that you're Jen anymore.
Kid,
Just a follow-up to the last post:
If you had been making these predictions by saying all along that you follow the news, check out the financials and try to figure out where events are headed then I would have no real problem with you. You'd still be wrong most of the time and most of your predictions would still fall in the trivial category... but I'd give you credit for making the attempt. Wall Street professionals blow it all the time - and they get paid good money to make those misques.
But you insist that you're some sort of quasi time traveler, still get it wrong virtually all the time, you have a paranoid streak a mile wide and come across in your posts as a immature juvenile with delusions of grandeur. I'm sorry if that assessment annoys you but it's fair, factual and shared by the majority.
I'll add this, too. I'm pretty much convinced at this time that you are not Jen. It's still quite curious that everytime she went out of town you went out of town. When she returned home you returned home. Not just generally but the exact same dates. She's from Seattle and your IP was from Seattle during that time frame. Equally curious is how you made the UseNet post about Robbie using Jen's email account. But as I said, I don't believe that you're Jen anymore.
ruthless
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
shared by the minority too
shared by the minority too
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hi Rain, been online sporatically so didn't have a chance to answer this sooner.
I was not aware of Hilary quoting bad country music. Has to be the most co-dependent song like, ever. Anyway, it is obvious to me, that bill and hilary's marriage was a political one. It may just be that she simply didn't care that he was "flandering." In fact for all we know, perhaps they had an "understanding" between them but because of the pseudo-christian climate of our culture, didn't want to "go there" in terms of explaining to anyone. So, it may appear that she "let him get away with disrespecting her" (paraphrasing) but we don't really know the personal story of their marriage, and frankly, who cares? Maybe in her mind, staying with him to further her political agenda IS the payback, that he "owes" her that. Do I "respect" it? I think that mongomy is over-rated and not neccesarly natural. So what two people decide to do with that in their 20+ years of marriage is not my concern. I know that it would depend on the state of my marriage, the actual incident and otherwise as to whether I would forgive my husband an indiscresion. Many women involved with powerful men accept this behavior because of the benefits of being with a powerful man. Hilary is not the first nor the last and at least she is using it to her advantage (the marriage.) also, no one is asking Hilary to be the ambassador for how women should behave in marriage. We are asking her to be the President. No woman should need an "example" for how to handle thier men, their marriages or anything else. If some woman stays with her cheating husband cuz hilary did, well you tell me, do I disrespect Hilary, or the woman who does what Hilary does cuz Hilary done did it? Hope you get my point.
Hi Rain, been online sporatically so didn't have a chance to answer this sooner.
I was not aware of Hilary quoting bad country music. Has to be the most co-dependent song like, ever. Anyway, it is obvious to me, that bill and hilary's marriage was a political one. It may just be that she simply didn't care that he was "flandering." In fact for all we know, perhaps they had an "understanding" between them but because of the pseudo-christian climate of our culture, didn't want to "go there" in terms of explaining to anyone. So, it may appear that she "let him get away with disrespecting her" (paraphrasing) but we don't really know the personal story of their marriage, and frankly, who cares? Maybe in her mind, staying with him to further her political agenda IS the payback, that he "owes" her that. Do I "respect" it? I think that mongomy is over-rated and not neccesarly natural. So what two people decide to do with that in their 20+ years of marriage is not my concern. I know that it would depend on the state of my marriage, the actual incident and otherwise as to whether I would forgive my husband an indiscresion. Many women involved with powerful men accept this behavior because of the benefits of being with a powerful man. Hilary is not the first nor the last and at least she is using it to her advantage (the marriage.) also, no one is asking Hilary to be the ambassador for how women should behave in marriage. We are asking her to be the President. No woman should need an "example" for how to handle thier men, their marriages or anything else. If some woman stays with her cheating husband cuz hilary did, well you tell me, do I disrespect Hilary, or the woman who does what Hilary does cuz Hilary done did it? Hope you get my point.
- Thread starter
- #193
RainmanTime
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hi Risata,
I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of the voters in this country would care, for the simple fact that this speaks to both Hill & Bill's honesty and whether or not they should be trusted. You may have a different view on marriage, and may not put a whole lot of stock in it, but it is pretty well known that the majority of the American people have a fairly traditional view (and this is not implying the majority is against sanctioning gay marriage). Whether a hetero or a homo marriage, I think the majority of people tend to believe it is a one-person commitment. And how you handle yourself in your commitments in ALL areas of life is something that many voters can and will use to assess whether you could be an adequate president. Remember what caused Gary Hart to drop out of the race???
But from the standpoint of electing a President, is it not important to you to assess how honest they are? In a way, there is only a fine distinction between the sham of their marriage and what some of the hoaxers around here try to perpetrate on users of this forum. Would you trust one of the hoaxers around here with ANYTHING having to do with your safety, security, or anything that could have even a meager impact on your life?
I am not sure you are "getting it". It speaks to character, and the issue of Hillary looking the other way is very similar to Bill's lying under oath (which got him disbarred in Arkansas and elsewhere). It is not the SUBSTANCE that matters (who cares if the Pres gets BJs from fat/ugly iterns?), but the legal aspect of lying about it. It shows the aspects of character. If he is willing to lie about something paltry like this just to avoid embarassment, what else did he lie about that WAS important. And the same scenario goes to Hillary...if she is willing to look the other way with respect to a commitment that most Americans hold in high regard, what else is she willing to look the other way about?
In an effort to help you understand the point I am making (it has little to do with the fact she has a vagina), let me share some facts as related by Dick Morris, a person who used to advise the former Clinton White House.
From:
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
So while Hill and her handlers position her in one light, Dick Morris is pointing out that it is not always truthful. If someone could find this kind of dirt on Obama, I would not support him either (and he has a penis). :D It is about character, honesty, and TRUST.
RMT
Hi Risata,
I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of the voters in this country would care, for the simple fact that this speaks to both Hill & Bill's honesty and whether or not they should be trusted. You may have a different view on marriage, and may not put a whole lot of stock in it, but it is pretty well known that the majority of the American people have a fairly traditional view (and this is not implying the majority is against sanctioning gay marriage). Whether a hetero or a homo marriage, I think the majority of people tend to believe it is a one-person commitment. And how you handle yourself in your commitments in ALL areas of life is something that many voters can and will use to assess whether you could be an adequate president. Remember what caused Gary Hart to drop out of the race???
But from the standpoint of electing a President, is it not important to you to assess how honest they are? In a way, there is only a fine distinction between the sham of their marriage and what some of the hoaxers around here try to perpetrate on users of this forum. Would you trust one of the hoaxers around here with ANYTHING having to do with your safety, security, or anything that could have even a meager impact on your life?
I am not sure you are "getting it". It speaks to character, and the issue of Hillary looking the other way is very similar to Bill's lying under oath (which got him disbarred in Arkansas and elsewhere). It is not the SUBSTANCE that matters (who cares if the Pres gets BJs from fat/ugly iterns?), but the legal aspect of lying about it. It shows the aspects of character. If he is willing to lie about something paltry like this just to avoid embarassment, what else did he lie about that WAS important. And the same scenario goes to Hillary...if she is willing to look the other way with respect to a commitment that most Americans hold in high regard, what else is she willing to look the other way about?
In an effort to help you understand the point I am making (it has little to do with the fact she has a vagina), let me share some facts as related by Dick Morris, a person who used to advise the former Clinton White House.
From:
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
So while Hill and her handlers position her in one light, Dick Morris is pointing out that it is not always truthful. If someone could find this kind of dirt on Obama, I would not support him either (and he has a penis). :D It is about character, honesty, and TRUST.
RMT
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
To Rain:
A good example of what Hillary will do in the future comes from her past. She sat on the board of Walmart, yep, Walmart the biggest company in Arkansas. What did she do - well check it out for yourself.
1) Did she try to get raises for workers, no.
2) Better health care for workers, no.
3) Child care for workers, no.
A true corporate demoncrat.
To Risata:
I guess I am not the only one that feels a little gloomy.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080111/consumer_confidence.html
It is true we go thru a time of troubles in the coming days, but after we cross the bridge past the period of peril we enter into the luminous landscape of the far future. A time of such beauty that mere words cannot describe.
A time of peace and harmony; were war is no more. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
To Rain:
A good example of what Hillary will do in the future comes from her past. She sat on the board of Walmart, yep, Walmart the biggest company in Arkansas. What did she do - well check it out for yourself.
1) Did she try to get raises for workers, no.
2) Better health care for workers, no.
3) Child care for workers, no.
A true corporate demoncrat.
To Risata:
I guess I am not the only one that feels a little gloomy.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080111/consumer_confidence.html
It is true we go thru a time of troubles in the coming days, but after we cross the bridge past the period of peril we enter into the luminous landscape of the far future. A time of such beauty that mere words cannot describe.
A time of peace and harmony; were war is no more. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
No, I did get it. My point in raising that they may have an understanding between them and chose to "lie" (more a sin of omission if that is the case) is because that most Americans do find marriage to be a monogamous commiment and adultery wrong (or sinful.) Therefore, why WOULD they divulge what is their personal business.....their marriage....and try and explain what could be an alternative lifestyle that ISNT anyone's business? I don't believe that what happens in the marriages of Presidents or anyone else is the business of anyone else. That is private life, not professional or public life. And yes, I get what you are saying about character in private may denote character in public, however, I don't agree with that either. We are all capable of white lying or avoiding embarrasment or standing on the priciple of our privacy. Life is not so black and white.
Now with all the examples of dishonesty and character questioning you've posed about Hilary, that to me speaks more volumes about her character than whether she forgives her husband. And how is it, that if the average woman forgives her husband, its not a character flaw, but when Hilary does it, it should cost her the presidency? Your question to me was about her forgiving Bill for cheating, not whether she is over all honest or has character. Frankly, Ive yet to see a politician that does.
No, I did get it. My point in raising that they may have an understanding between them and chose to "lie" (more a sin of omission if that is the case) is because that most Americans do find marriage to be a monogamous commiment and adultery wrong (or sinful.) Therefore, why WOULD they divulge what is their personal business.....their marriage....and try and explain what could be an alternative lifestyle that ISNT anyone's business? I don't believe that what happens in the marriages of Presidents or anyone else is the business of anyone else. That is private life, not professional or public life. And yes, I get what you are saying about character in private may denote character in public, however, I don't agree with that either. We are all capable of white lying or avoiding embarrasment or standing on the priciple of our privacy. Life is not so black and white.
Now with all the examples of dishonesty and character questioning you've posed about Hilary, that to me speaks more volumes about her character than whether she forgives her husband. And how is it, that if the average woman forgives her husband, its not a character flaw, but when Hilary does it, it should cost her the presidency? Your question to me was about her forgiving Bill for cheating, not whether she is over all honest or has character. Frankly, Ive yet to see a politician that does.
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Here a guy that remote view a women as the next president of the
United States. Who could this be Hillary?
Winner for 2008
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Here a guy that remote view a women as the next president of the
United States. Who could this be Hillary?
Winner for 2008
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Darby
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Risata,
Because the situation wasn't quite that simple. Aside from the obvious problem of the President's general credibility in the game of world politics where one or more peoples' lives hang in the balance of whether another world leader finds our President to be honest, we have the issue is employer-employee federal law.
The President is the Employer. Interns are the Employees. Irrespective of who initiates the sexual contact it is sexual harassment in the workplace to get a blow job from an employee. The gravity of the violation is usually based on the juxtaposition of power and authority. I don't think that any stretch of the imagination could find that there was an equal division of power between the President and the Intern. The blow job and the affair were violations of federal law as it applies to sexual harassment - especially when it is weighed against a historical pattern of such activities.
And then we have the issue of encouraging a sexual relationship with a person who was obviously, by all descriptions, a loose cannon and a stalker. That compromised the security of the President. Yes, he caused the breach of security but the President doesn't enjoy the freedom of choice that normal citizens have to do that. Placing himself in a position where he can be blackmailed or murdered by a jealous spurned ex-lover endangers everyone.
He made poor choices, it became public knowledge and at that point it was not a simple private trist. It was legitimate fodder for an open public debate into the overall qualifications (if not the sanity) of the President to remain in that position.
John Kennedy did the same thing with Marilyn Monroe. The Secret Service was able to (marginally) manage the situation. But when Marilyn was found dead the conspiracy theorists had a field day, i.e.the Kennedy Family if not the President himself terminated the problem in the most extreme way.
Like Marilyn, Monica was just a tad on the suicidal side. How do you think this would have played out had she taken the Monroe Solution to her problems? How do you think it would have played out had the government of one of our enemies decided to covertly take Monica out? It's not as if the conspiracy theorists hadn't already posted their thoughts on Bill's involvement in David Foster's death (and a host of others).
His lack of common sense and piss poor judgment caused a serious breach of national security, exposed the President to blackmail, caused both our allies and enemies to question the credibility of the President in all matters, placed Monica in danger of potential assassination (worst case) or of being turned by foreign agents and violated federal law. (Frankly, its a wonder that Secret Service didn't shoot her dead on one of those occassions when she was caught, while in one of her "manic" episodes, trying to sneak into the White House after being ex-communicated by the President because of her harassing phone calls. The responsibility for that outcome would have been shared by the President with Monica. Some poor Secret Service agent would have spent the rest of his or her life living with that tragedy...just because Bill couldn't keep his fly zipped.)
So it was our business. It was not a private matter.
And just one more thought on this. We (the American public) were the last to know. It would be a fantasy of the most naive sort to assume that the Russians, Chinese, Brits, French, Israelis and Germans weren't aware of the affair before it became public. If the Chinese knew then Iran, Iraq and Syria knew.
The Russians were well aware of the Kennedy brothers' affairs with Marilyn. That gave rise to yet another conspiracy theory or two. Kruschev or Castro had Marilyn killed in an attempt to set up either or both Jack and Bobby Kennedy for murder.
Risata,
Because the situation wasn't quite that simple. Aside from the obvious problem of the President's general credibility in the game of world politics where one or more peoples' lives hang in the balance of whether another world leader finds our President to be honest, we have the issue is employer-employee federal law.
The President is the Employer. Interns are the Employees. Irrespective of who initiates the sexual contact it is sexual harassment in the workplace to get a blow job from an employee. The gravity of the violation is usually based on the juxtaposition of power and authority. I don't think that any stretch of the imagination could find that there was an equal division of power between the President and the Intern. The blow job and the affair were violations of federal law as it applies to sexual harassment - especially when it is weighed against a historical pattern of such activities.
And then we have the issue of encouraging a sexual relationship with a person who was obviously, by all descriptions, a loose cannon and a stalker. That compromised the security of the President. Yes, he caused the breach of security but the President doesn't enjoy the freedom of choice that normal citizens have to do that. Placing himself in a position where he can be blackmailed or murdered by a jealous spurned ex-lover endangers everyone.
He made poor choices, it became public knowledge and at that point it was not a simple private trist. It was legitimate fodder for an open public debate into the overall qualifications (if not the sanity) of the President to remain in that position.
John Kennedy did the same thing with Marilyn Monroe. The Secret Service was able to (marginally) manage the situation. But when Marilyn was found dead the conspiracy theorists had a field day, i.e.the Kennedy Family if not the President himself terminated the problem in the most extreme way.
Like Marilyn, Monica was just a tad on the suicidal side. How do you think this would have played out had she taken the Monroe Solution to her problems? How do you think it would have played out had the government of one of our enemies decided to covertly take Monica out? It's not as if the conspiracy theorists hadn't already posted their thoughts on Bill's involvement in David Foster's death (and a host of others).
His lack of common sense and piss poor judgment caused a serious breach of national security, exposed the President to blackmail, caused both our allies and enemies to question the credibility of the President in all matters, placed Monica in danger of potential assassination (worst case) or of being turned by foreign agents and violated federal law. (Frankly, its a wonder that Secret Service didn't shoot her dead on one of those occassions when she was caught, while in one of her "manic" episodes, trying to sneak into the White House after being ex-communicated by the President because of her harassing phone calls. The responsibility for that outcome would have been shared by the President with Monica. Some poor Secret Service agent would have spent the rest of his or her life living with that tragedy...just because Bill couldn't keep his fly zipped.)
So it was our business. It was not a private matter.
And just one more thought on this. We (the American public) were the last to know. It would be a fantasy of the most naive sort to assume that the Russians, Chinese, Brits, French, Israelis and Germans weren't aware of the affair before it became public. If the Chinese knew then Iran, Iraq and Syria knew.
The Russians were well aware of the Kennedy brothers' affairs with Marilyn. That gave rise to yet another conspiracy theory or two. Kruschev or Castro had Marilyn killed in an attempt to set up either or both Jack and Bobby Kennedy for murder.
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Darby,
Thats quite a "what if" scenario and I disagree with you on certain points. Especially in other cultures, men in power have typically had a concubine or two or a whole harem. Its almost understood to be the case. Therefore, other countries being aware of this affair....well I just don't see that would be used in the blackmail you are speaking of or a matter of national security. While its true that the President did not have any decent judgment and as President should have been aware that the consequences of his affair would be worse, he's not the first nor the last President to engage in this activity and not the first one narcissistic enough to think he could get away with it. So I think your post read a bit conspiracy as well. Nevertheless, both you and Rain are pointing out many instances where the Clintons both lack integrity, character and apparently, common sense.
However, the question posed to me was should I disrespect Hilary for not forgiving her husband cheating on her, because that sends a "bad" message to women in general. It was THAT point, not the point of the ethics of the Clinton's I was addressing. So when I pointed out that its none of our business why Hilary forgave him, I stand by that.
Darby,
Thats quite a "what if" scenario and I disagree with you on certain points. Especially in other cultures, men in power have typically had a concubine or two or a whole harem. Its almost understood to be the case. Therefore, other countries being aware of this affair....well I just don't see that would be used in the blackmail you are speaking of or a matter of national security. While its true that the President did not have any decent judgment and as President should have been aware that the consequences of his affair would be worse, he's not the first nor the last President to engage in this activity and not the first one narcissistic enough to think he could get away with it. So I think your post read a bit conspiracy as well. Nevertheless, both you and Rain are pointing out many instances where the Clintons both lack integrity, character and apparently, common sense.
However, the question posed to me was should I disrespect Hilary for not forgiving her husband cheating on her, because that sends a "bad" message to women in general. It was THAT point, not the point of the ethics of the Clinton's I was addressing. So when I pointed out that its none of our business why Hilary forgave him, I stand by that.
- Thread starter
- #199
RainmanTime
Timekeeper
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Risata,
Well, if that is the only point you are debating, then I have a counterpoint and a reason why it *IS* other people's business, especially other women. It is no different than a baseball player saying "what I do on my time and with my body is no one's business but myself." But the plain reality is that the baseball player, like it or not, is a ROLE MODEL. By electing to pursue a career in the public eye you elect to accept all the baggage that comes with it. Hillary is no different. Whether you look upon her as a role model for other women who wish to "break the glass ceiling" that is EXACTLY what she is.
Women have used powerful men to get what they want all down through the ages. And in looking the other way when Bill wanted to stray, Hillary is making it very clear that she was just using her man to achieve her own power goals. Now what does this say to other women? In a day and age where we hear women SAY that they are independent and that they "don't need a man" and that women "deserve respect", how much does Hillary's actions support such rhetoric? They don't. In fact, what she is saying is "if you want power, you have to attach yourself to a powerful man and then look the other way when he wants sex from someone else." That is HARDLY am empowering statement to make to other women. It is not much of a stretch to go from that to "well, I let him beat me once in awhile because he has money and pays the bills, so I guess I should put up with it because I get what I want."
Like it or not, Risata, Hillary Clinton is a role model to other women because she chooses to seek powerful positions. And her actions DO send a message to women that there is no other way to achieve your goals but to attach yourself to a powerful man and then look the other way when he cheats. You may not look to her as a personal role model, but can you honestly say many other women do not?
RMT
Risata,
Well, if that is the only point you are debating, then I have a counterpoint and a reason why it *IS* other people's business, especially other women. It is no different than a baseball player saying "what I do on my time and with my body is no one's business but myself." But the plain reality is that the baseball player, like it or not, is a ROLE MODEL. By electing to pursue a career in the public eye you elect to accept all the baggage that comes with it. Hillary is no different. Whether you look upon her as a role model for other women who wish to "break the glass ceiling" that is EXACTLY what she is.
Women have used powerful men to get what they want all down through the ages. And in looking the other way when Bill wanted to stray, Hillary is making it very clear that she was just using her man to achieve her own power goals. Now what does this say to other women? In a day and age where we hear women SAY that they are independent and that they "don't need a man" and that women "deserve respect", how much does Hillary's actions support such rhetoric? They don't. In fact, what she is saying is "if you want power, you have to attach yourself to a powerful man and then look the other way when he wants sex from someone else." That is HARDLY am empowering statement to make to other women. It is not much of a stretch to go from that to "well, I let him beat me once in awhile because he has money and pays the bills, so I guess I should put up with it because I get what I want."
Like it or not, Risata, Hillary Clinton is a role model to other women because she chooses to seek powerful positions. And her actions DO send a message to women that there is no other way to achieve your goals but to attach yourself to a powerful man and then look the other way when he cheats. You may not look to her as a personal role model, but can you honestly say many other women do not?
RMT
Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton
To Darby:
You can laugh all you like, but my predictions have a habit of coming true. The Greenland icecap is melting and now there is word that Antarctica is melting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/
I predicted that in the future vast areas of the US were under water and people should move away from the coast due to monster hurricanes and tsunamis. I stand by my prediction that if we do not lower CO2 levels we face environmental catastrophe.
To Risata:
A very interesting thing happened yesterday. I saw two independants saying that they could not vote for either Hillary or Obama. They inquired of me who I was voting for. And I told tham that I supported McCain. Even though he is in favour of the Iraq war and I am against. I trust McCain to say the truth.
They told me that in a contest between Hillary and McCain they would vote for McCain.
Today five hard core democrats told me that they supported Obama, but in a contest between Hillary and McCain they would vote for McCain. I was shocked. Da mac is back! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
To Darby:
You can laugh all you like, but my predictions have a habit of coming true. The Greenland icecap is melting and now there is word that Antarctica is melting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/
I predicted that in the future vast areas of the US were under water and people should move away from the coast due to monster hurricanes and tsunamis. I stand by my prediction that if we do not lower CO2 levels we face environmental catastrophe.
To Risata:
A very interesting thing happened yesterday. I saw two independants saying that they could not vote for either Hillary or Obama. They inquired of me who I was voting for. And I told tham that I supported McCain. Even though he is in favour of the Iraq war and I am against. I trust McCain to say the truth.
They told me that in a contest between Hillary and McCain they would vote for McCain.
Today five hard core democrats told me that they supported Obama, but in a contest between Hillary and McCain they would vote for McCain. I was shocked. Da mac is back! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
- Status
