|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 137 responses total. |
johnnie
|
|
response 99 of 137:
| 
Feb 28 19:01 UTC 2006 |
Nothing shameful about it. Not everyone wants to be a politician or be
in the public eye.
|
richard
|
|
response 100 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:03 UTC 2006 |
when the clintons got married, she didn't take his name. She remained Hillary
Rodham and for several years was crucified by the right, they said she was
disrespecting her husband by not taking his name, and that he was somehow a
weak husband for not MAKING her take his name. For political reasons, and
because she was tired of the bs, she gave in and added "clinton" to her name.
It is hard for a female politician to be her own person in a chauvinist
society.
|
edina
|
|
response 101 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:07 UTC 2006 |
Re 99 - Maybe shameful isn't the best word, but to be honest, Laura Bush
represents a small percentage of the women in this country. I always felt
HRC better represented me - she worked, she's a mother, etc. Maybe that is
why I have no issue voting for her.
|
richard
|
|
response 102 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:11 UTC 2006 |
hrc also always earned more money than her husband, she was the one "bringing
home the bacon" as they say. some still think women shouldn't work, let alone
make more money than their husband.
|
edina
|
|
response 103 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:14 UTC 2006 |
I think it is safe to say that that "some" is decreasing.
|
tod
|
|
response 104 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:21 UTC 2006 |
HRC represents special interests I'm not exactly aligned with.
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the
beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been,
between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages,
quoted in The New York Daily News
|
kingjon
|
|
response 105 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:26 UTC 2006 |
I'm amazed -- finally something I agree with a Clinton about!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 106 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:30 UTC 2006 |
Do you think those are her "real" views, or what she's saying to try to
get elected?
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:31 UTC 2006 |
hrc also supports benefits for same sex couples, and civil unions. she
attended a gay committment ceremony for one of her aides here in nyc some time
back.
|
tod
|
|
response 108 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:39 UTC 2006 |
HRC also supports "regulating" the Internet.
Civil union does not equal marriage. Don't be so obtuse.
|
richard
|
|
response 109 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:45 UTC 2006 |
personally, I hope that the good senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold,
decides to run for President in 2008.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 110 of 137:
|
Feb 28 20:25 UTC 2006 |
hillary *flag burning amendment* clinton?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 111 of 137:
|
Feb 28 20:35 UTC 2006 |
I think I could enthusiastically support Russ Feingold.
It'd be interesting to have a McCain vs. Feingold election.
|
klg
|
|
response 112 of 137:
|
Feb 28 20:37 UTC 2006 |
Good old reliable RW. Always on the wacko liberal fringe. Isn't
Feingold even to the left of Flipper Kerry??
|
mcnally
|
|
response 113 of 137:
|
Feb 28 20:43 UTC 2006 |
By definition he is. For Republican talking-points purposes, every
candidate the Democrats ever run is officially "to the left of" every
candidate they've ever run in the past and they're also responsible for
anything bad any previous Democratic candidate has ever thought or done.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 114 of 137:
|
Feb 28 20:54 UTC 2006 |
Bill O'Reilly always refers to the left as the "far left", but never refers
to the right as the "far right". What that shows is only where he sits - far
to the right.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 115 of 137:
|
Feb 28 21:13 UTC 2006 |
> Bill O'Reilly always refers to the left as the "far left", but never
> refers to the right as the "far right".
How could you have reached such a conclusion without having watched
every episode of "The Factor" ever made?
|
tod
|
|
response 116 of 137:
|
Feb 28 21:13 UTC 2006 |
He doesn't sit. He's an entertainer like the rest of those commentators.
He used to be a high school teacher and an investigative reporter but today
he is nothing but a commentator aka entertainer.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 117 of 137:
|
Feb 28 21:47 UTC 2006 |
his ratings are dropping.
nathan:
http://mediamatters.org
is a good start.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 118 of 137:
|
Feb 28 22:07 UTC 2006 |
Who? O'Reilly's? I wouldn't know because I don't watch Fox, except in
the morning because the other morning shows are too damn serious.
|
twenex
|
|
response 119 of 137:
|
Feb 28 22:13 UTC 2006 |
What, you mean, like, they deal with reality? OH THE HORROR!
|
cross
|
|
response 120 of 137:
|
Feb 28 22:22 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 121 of 137:
|
Feb 28 22:42 UTC 2006 |
"Civil war in Iraq: Is it a GOOD thing?"
|
twenex
|
|
response 122 of 137:
|
Feb 28 22:48 UTC 2006 |
Snicker.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 123 of 137:
|
Feb 28 22:57 UTC 2006 |
that was a banner on one of faux news' programs last week.
rupert murdoch is a psychopath.
|