Letters to the Editor
-
An Answer to tbc's Question - Part III
39. Business licenses will no longer be handed out like candy. Anyone desirous of operating a business that will employ persons outside their family will be required to pass a thorough-going exam so as to prove that they are familiar with basic economics and applicable laws. Furthermore, they shall receive intense ethical instruction as to the truth that while some expolitation is inevitable, any more than the simple amount required to run a business is grounds for revocation of the license to do same.
Well there you have it, the way things would be in my ideal country. There's a whole lot more, of course, but it's a pleasant Sunday afternoon and I want to go out and get some fresh air
-
Heard it All Before:
Trust me, sexism from lefty dudes is nothing new.
Indeed this is a sad, sad truth I have discovered the hard way. The same also goes for general "douchey" behavior, as I've known a few men who seem to make a second career of being politically correct and "sensitive" turn out to be the biggest assholes.
I'm sure lots of women will confirm this.
-
Anna
You call it semantics, I call it "what words mean." Your definitions of monarch are: "One that surpasses others in power or preeminence" or "One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right".
The second one is obviously not applicable here-- no Bush or Clinton has or will reign over the U.S. either for life or by hereditary right. Hillary isn't even a Clinton by birth, so the hereditary part of the monarch definition doesn't apply to her-- of the four people in question, it would apply only to George W. Bush, and not even because he was still elected, not just given the job because his dad had it before him.
By your first definition, one could argue that a) any U.S. president is a monarch, since he or she always surpasses others in power or preeminence. And b) powerful people outside of politics are also monarchs under this definition. It's meaningless.
You also said, "If she theoretically wins an 8 year term the Clintons will have occupied the White House for a record of 16 years!! Roman emporers haven't ruled for as long as that. That's not a monarchy?"
Um, no, it's not. And what on earth do Roman emperors have to do with this? Shall we limit the terms of politicians so that none is longer than the shortest reign of a Roman emperor?
And: "You mean Hillary wouldn't be pushing the same agenda with the same people her husband once endorsed the same way the Bushes are doing? As much as I disagree with the Bushes, at least it is a father and son. The Clintons will be the EXACT same people in the White House." Now you're actually making a good point. But it has nothing to do with monarchy, and, frankly, absolutely nothing to do with the Bushes, either, since they brought a completely different set of people into the White House with them. I don't know if she would have the same advisors as her husband.
And finally, "Like I said before, Hillary could bring world peace on a santa sleigh and I still wouldn't vote for her because the presidency is not something only for a select group powerful political families to rule on us depending on party alignment."
That's great. I'm sure that all of the people dying every day in meaningless wars would be happy to hear it.
I agree with the basic point that the presidency should be open to anyone, not just members of certain well-connected families. But that's not a reason not to vote for a candidate who's otherwise a good choice. I'm not even saying Clinton IS otherwise a good choice, I just think a candidate should be considered based on his/her merits, not his/her relatives. If that system were adhered to in the first place, George W. Bush probably wouldn't have risen to such a level of prominence in the first place...and that would have been better for everyone.
-
Exasperating Coyness
I just couldn't read any more once I read "exasperating coyness." Here comes the avalanche of excrement! Carefully timing the announcement of one's candidacy is portrayed as some kind of feminine silliness: Someone with a strong stomach needs to start a database and see how many of these specialized characterizations emerge in print now that Clinton has entered the race.
-
Draft Gore!
I like Hillary and if she wasn't so hated by the Wrong, she might have a chance to win. She's competent and I think she'd be a terrific leader. We're just not ready yet in this country for a strong female leader. The Wrong (my nickname for the conservatives if you haven't already guessed) will completely mobilize to vote against her no matter who the Republican candidate will be. Hell, there will be Republicans rising from the dead for the opportunity to vote against Hillary. And Obama? Forget that; there's too many closet racists in this country who think his skin is too dark and his name is too ethnic, and unfortunately it rhymes with Osama. Maybe in about another 20 years or so for Obama. Sorry to sound so pessimistic about these two potential Dem front runners, worthy candidates I would vote for if I thought they could actually win. However, here's my optimisic suggestion: Who deserves to be in the White House? Why Al Gore, of course!!! I hope he runs because that's where I will cast my vote. Al, please run!!!! We need you!!!!
-
What has she done?
All you Hillary supporters out there in naive-land, what has Hillary done for the State of New York since she has been a Senator?
What qualifications does she have to be President of the United States?
And what REALLY happened to Vince Foster?
-
She's in
Celebrity trumps passion. Didn't you learn that form Arnold's victory in California.
-
No No No No No No NO NO NO!!!!!
NO war-pigs. No votes for war-pigs. Not one red cent for war-pig Hillary.
Dennis Kucinich is the candidate of peace. Only a peace candidate can save America.