RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
Says Share, still trying desperately to annoy me even though Doc has clearly indicated he has no desire to dump on either of the Clintons: > I still don't understand how Clinton could have been so well, dumb. Was she > really that attractive?! Ok, > maybe he cracked under the pressure of the job. But really, so much about it > is unfathomable. Must be > karma (-: But you keep right on going, Share. The entertainment value here is very high. Come on, tell us more about Bill and Hill's karma. We just can't wait to hear. Doc wrote: Who knows the truth of it? I kinda agree with Judy on this one, about the public view of private lives, up to a point. For example, that former head of the IMF, who turned out to be a rapist, should be publicly castrated, imo. As far as Bill and Hillary, though, and all of their drama, all I can muster, is a shrug. Wouldn't affect my vote at all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Doc, it's not just because of what was exposed. It was how she reacted to what was exposed. And that she was an enabler, allowing it to happen over and over during all those previous years and doing seemingly little to take a stand against it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Fair enough - your opinions, and your vote, are certainly your own, but to cast Hillary as some sort of victim, and an enabler, simply because of what was exposed, I think is short-sighted. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private life is also going to come under scrutiny. My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone was thinking or feeling. On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
I still don't understand how Clinton could have been so well, dumb. Was she really that attractive?! Ok, maybe he cracked under the pressure of the job. But really, so much about it is unfathomable. Must be karma (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Who knows the truth of it? I kinda agree with Judy on this one, about the public view of private lives, up to a point. For example, that former head of the IMF, who turned out to be a rapist, should be publicly castrated, imo. As far as Bill and Hillary, though, and all of their drama, all I can muster, is a shrug. Wouldn't affect my vote at all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Doc, it's not just because of what was exposed. It was how she reacted to what was exposed. And that she was an enabler, allowing it to happen over and over during all those previous years and doing seemingly little to take a stand against it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Fair enough - your opinions, and your vote, are certainly your own, but to cast Hillary as some sort of victim, and an enabler, simply because of what was exposed, I think is short-sighted. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private life is also going to come under scrutiny. My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone was thinking or feeling. On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
Who knows the truth of it? I kinda agree with Judy on this one, about the public view of private lives, up to a point. For example, that former head of the IMF, who turned out to be a rapist, should be publicly castrated, imo. As far as Bill and Hillary, though, and all of their drama, all I can muster, is a shrug. Wouldn't affect my vote at all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Doc, it's not just because of what was exposed. It was how she reacted to what was exposed. And that she was an enabler, allowing it to happen over and over during all those previous years and doing seemingly little to take a stand against it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Fair enough - your opinions, and your vote, are certainly your own, but to cast Hillary as some sort of victim, and an enabler, simply because of what was exposed, I think is short-sighted. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private life is also going to come under scrutiny. My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone was thinking or feeling. On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
Doc, it's not just because of what was exposed. It was how she reacted to what was exposed. And that she was an enabler, allowing it to happen over and over during all those previous years and doing seemingly little to take a stand against it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Fair enough - your opinions, and your vote, are certainly your own, but to cast Hillary as some sort of victim, and an enabler, simply because of what was exposed, I think is short-sighted. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private life is also going to come under scrutiny. My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone was thinking or feeling. On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
There's so much featherheaded crap in even Share's shorter utterances, I don't always notice all of it right away. She actually wrote this: (snip) > I mean, that affair occurred on the world stage! Hard to believe, eh?
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
Fair enough - your opinions, and your vote, are certainly your own, but to cast Hillary as some sort of victim, and an enabler, simply because of what was exposed, I think is short-sighted. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private life is also going to come under scrutiny. My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone was thinking or feeling. On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
Share tries to dig herself out of her hole: > I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one > willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private > life > is also going to come under scrutiny. Yes, this is a recent but very unfortunate development when the private lives in question have no bearing on the ability of the public figure to carry out his or her responsibilities. That it's socially acceptable nowadays does not mean one has to engage in such scrutiny and pronounce one's opinion on it. That is not something a smart person with integrity would want to take advantage of, IMHO. > My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone > was thinking > or feeling. Share, you're only going to embarrass yourself in this discussion. In the first place, I never said it was. But more importantly, you have no idea what went on behind the "observable behaviors," and thus you aren't in a position to have an opinion about whether those behaviors were appropriate. Moreover, the "observable behaviors" don't give you a clue as to whether Hillary was "acting like a doormat" or "enabling" Bill. Plus which, of course, you yourself said you had "read" that Hillary "really loves Bill." So your claim to be going only by "observable behaviors" is self-evidently false. You are lying either to us or to yourself, or both. And you never answered my earlier question: What made you think that Emily and I would think you would vote for Hillary? On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private life is also going to come under scrutiny. My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone was thinking or feeling. On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" wrote: What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 liters of H2O per day -- minus 10 years!
What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good for them; it's none of our damn business.) We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions, promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's one we see only from a distance through the media). It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a marital problem. It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so." (Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.) But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case, you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings. (Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.) Share spewed: > MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his > womanizing. I mean, that affair > occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that > Hillary really loves Bill. Even > more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than a faithful one who is a nobody.
