Skip to comments.THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY
Posted on 01/12/2006 5:33:41 AM PST by Mia T
THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY
AUTHENTICATION OF PHOTO
Think of the secrets trips to Europe for the mid term face lifts.
thanks for your help ping
Mia T. bump.
"....America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate...."
The ida that America isn't ready for a female president is simply a failure of imagination. If England's Iron Lady were the president our enemies would have a serious problem and they'd KNOW it. If Maggie Thather could somehow have run I would have voted for her at any point after the Falklands bitch slapping.
Leadership makes it's own way. WHEN there is a credible female candidate I think polls will suddenly show that "Americans are ready....etc"
I hear she's 'gonna be attending a function with that lovable, American patriot... Harry Belafonte.
It was like living in downtown SF all over again, with people trying to spew as many 25 50cent words around to prove how "worthier" they were. And the drama? I was so bored my eyes began glazing over.
2- Argentina ain't al Qaeda.
(As I noted above, missus clinton did briefly assume a full-frontal Thatcher pose, which was summarily rejected by her base. Desperate, she then stupidly tried triangulation, which left her with a constituency of zero.)
;) SF is tough.
Really? Her internal polling must show her in bad shape with her comrades (the D base).
Al Gore just bought a place in SF, too. "west wing" brought to life, and noxious gasses increase in SF.
Where? Lemme guess... Pacific Heights?
Well, he wanted in either at the Castro, Tenderloin, or Hunters Point, but his (taxpayer funded) security team threatened to resign. ;>
My whole state is in bed with Chavez... Joe Kennedy, Delahunt... they're all 'kissin his commie-a$$ for oil.
Rumor has it that the Hildabeast just met with Belafonte - I would love to see that photo [if it exists] get circulated.
re Harry #15
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to get these people into line," he continued, before adding: "You can't do that with Senator Clinton saying increase troop levels,"
Asked point-blank if he thought Mrs. Clinton was the Democratic Party's best hope to retake the White House," the Colorado Democrat declared: "I'm in total disagreement with her position on Iraq."
... The former presidential candidate told the Times that Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war in a bid to avoid being painted as "weak on defense," a political strategy that he calls "all wrong."
"We are a republic. We are not an empire," Hart told the Times. "And this is an imperial policy."
Gary Hart Raps Pro-war Hillary Clinton
It's the old Dick Morris Hail Mary pass, (when in trouble, triangulate3), the once trusty play that for eight years kept two clumsy kleptocrats4 in the Oval Office and out of the slammer (even as it placed America and Americans in ever-increasing peril.)5
That missus clinton has managed, thereby, to stake out Iraqi territory occupied apparently by no one6 seems to have escaped her notice. Nonetheless, this constituency of zero is the least of her troubles.
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge You rarely see her. You almost never hear her. (Think of it as the hillary! 2000 'listening tour' extended ad nauseam.) And in those rare instances where she does actually speak, the 'event' is always prearranged, prescripted, prepeopled and preprogrammed by the clinton machine....
the principal being more worthless even than its phantom proxy, both alike unsubstantial, and the former shapeless to boot
or the most part, missus clinton operates in absentia, by proxy.
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
You rarely see her. You almost never hear her. (Think of it as the hillary! 2000 'listening tour' extended ad nauseam.)
And in those rare instances where she does actually speak, the 'event' is always prearranged, prescripted, prepeopled and preprogrammed by the clinton machine....
1- Thatcher is sui generis.
2- Argentina ain't al Qaeda.
I don't think Thatcher was sui gereris, I believe she was a leader and the dearth of leadership in the post ww2 world simply makes her seem 'sui generis'.
When the Falklands was attacked the world began their usual chatter about "crisis" and "process". Thatcher on the other hand ACTED by sending over some guys with guns and the thing was settled.
As far as Argentina not being Al Qaeda: Thatcher only had Argentina to respond to; HOW she responded is the factor, NOT that there are perhaps other values in the present equation. For all we know she may have responded to the present war with a much BROADER front than Predsident Bush has but THAT would have required a level of leadership not EVER seen post WWII
Agreed. It makes me sad that this is the first female to run for president.
Many voters will vote for her because she is a woman. As I always complain, Americans have become so apathetic about our Country.
Privilege to vote should have certain criteria. Intellegence, taxpayer...etc. This may sound outrageous to some
<< If Maggie Thather could somehow have run I would have voted for her at any point after the Falklands bitch slapping. >>
Surely - with enormous help from her FRiends - "Hong Kong" Snatcher really showed it to all those really tough Argentines.
And to Hell with the seven and a half million Once-FRee-British Hong Kong citizens and Once-FRee Sovereign British Hong Kong and all of its capital, wealth and treasure that she, for the enrichment of her son and of those of her cabinet ministers who elected to avail themselves of and profit from Peking's profligacy, so cravenly handed into mass-murderous medieval bloody slavery at the hands of Peking's psychopaths and other predators.
<< Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all. >>
And that danger, let us never forget, on top of the horrendous harm her loathsome and fearsome and treasonous gang has already done our nation. And the Civilization we have long vanguarded - and must foreever guard.
Oh that her prurient spouse's pal, our present president, would pick up on and poignantly ponder those points.
<< When the Falklands was attacked the world began [Its] usual chatter about "crisis" and "process". Thatcher on the other hand acted by sending over some guys with guns and the thing was settled. >>
And then cravenly surrendered Sovereign Once-FRee British Hong Hong and its seven and a half million once-FRee citizens into slavery. The only such surrender, ever!
Thatcher only seemed comparatively ballsy when viewed among the shower of indistinguishable from one another gormless gutless elitist emasculated, feminized, homosexualized socialist nincompoops that have, from Chamberlain through Atlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Major to Blair, occupied the increasingly-irrelevant office of british prime minister.
Or secret meetings!!!! With ......??????
Hard to argue with you. I believe, even WITH President Bush in the mix, we are living in a time of weak leadership. This may have something to do with the changes in the avarage American post WWII as much as anything else.
Glad to hear he is safe from the long reaching hands of the clintons.
BUMP! Excellent and most accurate as always. :)
<< I believe, even WITH President Bush in the mix, we are living in a time of weak leadership. >>
As just a small sampling of his weakness, Mr Bush, for fantasized and/or dubious and/or no political gain, has repudiated and/or neglected our nation's sovereign borders and has refused to confront the fact we are losing our language and our culture to invading and essentially hostiley colonizing criminal aliens. He has appointed scores and/or has attempted to appoint many other abjectly incompetent cronies to feral-gummint offices and has presided over the worst communization of education and social security/medicare for decades. And has abrogated the First Amendment to our Constitution and criminalized normal business practices.
And those examples are not even the half of it because, while allowing, as senate "Democrats," with impunity, block his own nominees, most of his predecessor's activist and sleeper appointees to continue to occupy many key federal positions of influence he has also, by inviting, encouraging, facilitating and effecting the rehabilitation of the recidivist racketeer-traitors, liars, looters, thieves, mass-murderers and co-serial rapist Cli'tons, both lent legitimacy to the eight years of un-and-anti-American activities including treason and every other kind of criminality and seen to the incubation and solidification of the immense harm done by the Cli'ton Crime Machine to both our nation - and to the very Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization our nation has long vanguarded. And must forever guard.
Not only weak - then - but almost Jimmy-Carter-esque weak and ignorant and gullible.
And, as of January 12 2006, a danger to us all.
Thanks for your focus Mia T.
Bill Clinton will be the last Democratic President in The United States of America. It is their/his well deserved legacy. It is our duty to the future of this great nation.
Absolutely.... -- Brian Allen
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton
by Mia T, 7.31.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
- Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a [pre-9/11] Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."
Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
Mia T, November 1999
ur leaders are inexorably shrinking. According to current mathematical models, they are shrinking at a rate of 6.7 per linear dimension per election cycle per terrorist attack. At this rate, most leaders will be nanoleaders by the 2020s.
The leader-shrinkage function is discontinuous for
1992 =< t <= 2000 and continuous for all other t.
The 1990s saw in America a sudden, discontinuous drop in leader size, a drop that retrospectively, post-9/11, has been theorized to be its greatest lower bound.
(Can anything be lower than a clinton?)
"Two for the price of one," the clinton pitch in '92 -- (Did the clintons understand at the time that one was not enough?) -- only made matters worse. Missus clinton in the West Wing actually added to this discontinuous decrease in leader size.
History will record, therefore, that the clintons--the twofer, (1992-2000), were America's first nano-president.
The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.
The twofer construct, transposed to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, is now poised to retake power. A self-replicating, Constitution-specific pathogen, the clinton nano-presidency, post-9/11, is a danger that we cannot -- we must not -- abide.
By Thomas Sowell
Dec 27, 2005
I don't make a million dollars a year but I think every member of Congress should be paid at least that much. It's not because those turkeys in Washington deserve it. It's because we deserve a lot better people than we have in Congress.
The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers' money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected. You could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year for a century for less money than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
There is no point complaining about the ineptness, deception or corruption of government while refusing to do anything to change the incentives and constraints which lead to ineptness, deception and corruption.
You are not going to get the most highly skilled or intelligent people in the country, people with real-world experience, while offering them one-tenth or less of what such people can earn in the private sector.
A professor of economics at a leading university earns more than a member of Congress or a justice of the Supreme Court -- and a surgeon earns at least twice as much as an economics professor, though still only about a tenth of what a successful corporate executive can make.
How many people in the top layer of their respective professions are going to sacrifice the future of their families -- the ability to give their children the best education, the ability to have something to fall back on in case of illness or tragedy, the ability to retire in comfort and with peace of mind -- in order to go into politics?
A few people here and there may be willing to make such sacrifices for the good of the country but, by and large, you get what you pay for. What we are getting as cheap politicians are often a disgrace -- and enormously costly as reckless spenders of the taxpayers' money in order to keep themselves getting re-elected.
Whatever the problems faced by the country, the number one priority of elected officials is to get re-elected. Nothing does that better than handing out money from the public treasury. Cheap politicians are expensive politicians, currently costing the taxpayers more than a trillion dollars a year.
If you have trouble visualizing what a trillion is, just remember that a trillion seconds ago, no one on this planet could read or write. A trillion seconds is thousands of years. That's the kind of money our cheap politicians are spending in order to keep getting re-elected.
Since re-election is the key, term limits are effective only in so far as they get rid of re-election. If the limit is three terms, then two of those three terms will be spent trying to get re-elected -- and the third term will be spent trying to get elected to some other office.
What term limits need to do is make it nearly impossible to spend a whole career in politics. One term per office and some period of years outside of politics before running again would be a good principle.
Many people today marvel when looking back at the leaders who created the United States of America. Most of the founders of this country had day jobs for years. They were not career politicians.
George Washington, who took pride in his self-control, lost his temper completely when someone told him that a decision he was going to make could cost him re-election as President. He blew up at the suggestion that he wanted to be President, rather than serving as a duty when he would rather be back home.
Power is such a dangerous thing that ideally it should be wielded by people who don't want to use power, who would rather be doing something else, but who are willing to serve a certain number of years as a one-time duty, preferably at the end of a career doing something else.
What about all the experience we would lose? Most of that is experience in creating appearances, posturing, rhetoric, and spin -- in a word, deception. We need leaders with experience in the real world, not experience in the phony world of politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.