I voted for Bill Clinton the first time with optimism and a sense that he was going to be a great president.
I voted for him the second time, after his denial of the genocide in Rwanda, and after some other terrible policy failures, holding my nose.
I always really liked Hillary Clinton and voted for her for senator, but in examining why I did not automatically vote for her in the primary, Bill's failings came up front and center. He dismantled part of the New Deal structure that kept the financial markets safe. He called the genocide in Rwanda genocide-like. I know it is not popular to mention his personal failings but his behavior as a man (not president, man) was sexist and degrading to his family.
He has a great mind in service to a needy personality. He could have been a fantastic presiddent but something in his character prevented that.
One other thing: As far as Chelsea who seems like a lovely young woman. What father, what good father, puts his kid though the public scrutiny of his sex life with someone about her age. I can't imagine a lousier thing to do to your family.
This is not being written to pointlessly trash Bill Clinton, he has many good qualities and some things flourished during his presidency. Let's just not romanticize this man though.
I believe Hillary would have been a much better president than her husband and support her for VP. I don't think her alliance/marriage has helped her a great deal though.
kind of father that takes their kids to a church where someone like Rev. Wright and Rev. Meeks preach their divisive crap from the pulpit.
I almost did not post because I new, in spite of the fact that this had nothing to do with Obama, someone would troll rate me. I hope you enjoyed getting that off your chest. I was not ranting, nor did I say anything vindictive, just my own assessment. I guess that is not permitted these days though. Oh well.
new=knew
I suppose censorship because of fear of ratings is the way to go here now, no? I never troll rate, if I disagree with someone I am explicit about it in a post. I guess it is easier just to run the comments section blasting away as one chooses.
Would have been fine were it not for one line. I'll let you figure out which line it was.
Other than that....keep posting, don't let tr's bother ya.
Look, you troll rated me then tell me not to mind being troll rated and to figure out why? I don't really get any of this. Too much game playing.
Not meaning to play games....just not trying to inflame things further.
As to me telling you not to mind being tr'd....when I replied, based on your typo, I thought that you were new to the site. Was trying to encourage you (the presumed 'newbie') to continue posting and not be upset by being tr'd on your 'first' comment (granted, I could have checked your history...but, I didn't).
Big picture, I think that you know exactly why you were tr'd....no need to hash it out any further. I apologize for presuming you to be newbie and, as such, trying to give some encouraging words.
Okay, then please tell me how to be critical of Bill Clinton without getting troll rated? I think others have had the same problem with a reasoned post critical of Hillary or Obama getting TR'd. I'm not a troll. There are no falsehoods. I am clearly a good Democrat (check out my posting history if you doubt that).
How can one not be permitted to criticize without the threat of trusted user status revoked? Doesn't that put a huge damper on discourse?
I'm not sure what the reasoning of TRing here is. If you lie, that's one thing. But to not be allowed to take exception to anything any Democrat does; that is unproductive and unrealistic.
I would not want to see the next Democratic president make the errors Clinton did. If we idealize our presidents, we run that risk. I think a critical eye is necessary as we move on. I think FDR was a great president, but I can still point out things he did that were not okay...why not the same with Bill Clinton?
If this is about bringing up the personal scandal during his tenure, is it not okay for a Democrat to say that kind of behavior was just wrong.
There was nothing vindictive in saying he wasn't a good father because he placed her in public scrutiny.
Again what you wrote:
Do you mean to tell me there is no scrutiny in running for politics and there was no scrutiny in the association with Wright? What kind of good father puts his kids under that kind of scrutiny?
Don't be a hypocrite because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I troll rated you because what you were doing was obvious trolling and a pathetic cheap shot.
I was not talking about Obama. This thread is not about Obama. I was talking specifically about Bill Clinton and subjecting one's child to one's indiscretions. It was not vindictive, it was an awful lapse in judgment on his part and would have been had he been a private citizen or president. That is my personal view. It was not vindictive, it was simply what happened.
Ahhh yes, the old "he should have left when the preacher breathed a single controversial word!" line.
You appear to have received all your information about TUCC from Fox News. Have you watched every sermon from the last 20 years at Trinity? If not, you really have no idea just how much of the preaching was "divisive crap" and how much of it was the Gospel.
If I had children, I'd proudly take them to TUCC any Sunday of the year. Rev. Wright, hot as he may have been at times, remains a true leader in his community and a preacher of the Gospel - including the parts that make people uncomfortable.
I've known about Trinity for years. As a resident of the South Side of Chicago it isn't some secret to me, and I knew about Wright before Barack ever met him.
And yes he (like most people of conscious) should have left when he preached a single controversial line. In my family there are several pastors and I've never heard anything as divisive and race baiting as what Wright preaches. So don't lecture me about the Gospel.
And yes he (like most people of conscious) should have left when he preached a single controversial line.
See, there's the rub. Define "controversial."
In the context of Scripture, there was absolutely nothing controversial about what Wright said. "God damn America" is not substantially different from the words of the prophet Jeremiah in the Old Testament. Certainly, Wright said things we all disagree with, but my pastors have said things I disagreed with in the past too. Know what I've done? Stayed in the church, because the church is much bigger than a single line preached by a single pastor on a single Sunday. It's a community.
Moreover, I think your claim that "most people of conscious [sic]" should have left TUCC is rather problematic. If you're making that claim, though, I'd like to see you make it where it counts. You're in Chicago; next Sunday, I challenge you to stand outside TUCC after the service and tell every single person you see coming out of the church doors that he or she is not a "person of conscious [sic]." If you're going to make that claim, you need to put your money where your mouth is.
in the bible can I find sermons railing against white people? Can you quote me chapter and verse where it says that "white folks greed runs a world in need?"
And the pastor is the church. The pastor is the reason why people go to certain churches. If all churches were the same and the pastor made no difference we'd all attend one mega church in our towns or cities that were part of our denominations.
Read the Hebrew prophets. Pay particular attention to Amos and Malachi, who certainly do call out the leaders and the rich of Israel for continuing in greed while the poor suffered. Take, for example, these verses:
This is what the Lord says: "For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. 7 They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Amos 2:6-7
For someone whose family apparently includes clergy, you don't seem to understand ecclesiology very well. The pastor is not the only reason why people go to certain churches; in fact, I've known many people, including myself, who went to a church because they liked the community, despite the fact that the pastor wasn't exactly ideal.
They're talking about rich v poor not greedy whites and poor. Are there no poor whites? Did the bible separate the poor whites from the poor of color?
Did Wright? Please link me to Wright claiming that all white people are rich.
did speak about rich whites. Should I link you to the video on Christmas Day where he railed against "rich white people?" Have you read Obama's book where he talked about the first sermon he heard Wright give that included the line "where white folks greed runs a world in need?"
Are you telling me that you are that ignorant on the subject that we're discussing?
That isn't what I said, and you know it. I asked you to link me to a statement where Wright says that all white people are rich.
As for rich white people, are you denying that this country's wealthiest citizens are predominantly white?
that Wright said all white people were rich? How the hell should I respond to something you pulled out of your ass?
Are there no poor whites? Did the bible separate the poor whites from the poor of color?
I took that as an implication that Wright was denying the existence of poor whites. If it wasn't, I apologize. Nevertheless, Wright had a point; the predominance of white skin among the wealthy is evidence that our culture still has a great deal of white privilege and white supremacy to deal with. And the fact that the wealthy are exploiting the poor of all colors is something that I think would hardly be in dispute among Democrats.
