Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Hillary takes a bold stand on homosexuality. "Bold stand" meaning, of course, that when asked if it is immoral she replied "I'll leave that for others to decide"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
37
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

200 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2007 at 4:35 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
 
wildsilverfox
2007-03-15 4:38:16 PM  
that's a strong statement coming from Hillary, the raging dyke
//cue lisa simpsons as america's first straight female prez
 
Bukharin
2007-03-15 4:38:59 PM  
The best leaders leave the hard decisions to others.
 
Englebert Slaptyback
2007-03-15 4:39:10 PM  
Oh my - a politician realized that she is in fact not the absolute arbiter of morality.

img.fark.net ??
 
FlashLV
2007-03-15 4:40:03 PM  
You're telling me she said it twice in the same day or is this a duplicate??
 
moops
2007-03-15 4:41:00 PM  
better that than preaching. that's how i want it. i decide, not a self-righteous conservative.

live and let live. conservatives can't do this, except when it comes to neo-nazis and "freeman".
 
FlashLV
2007-03-15 4:41:07 PM  
Bukharin

The best leaders leave the hard decisions to others.

*scratches head*

Sarcasm?
 
Brown Sauce
2007-03-15 4:43:09 PM  
Judging people is immoral.
 
tomcatadam
2007-03-15 4:45:07 PM  
FlashLV: *scratches head*

Sarcasm?

As in, the leader isn't going to be a military genius so he leaves strategic decisions (i.e. a regiment of troops in this formation) to the generals.

Or something like that.
 
mangomango
2007-03-15 4:46:56 PM  
Hey conservatives here's a thought.

How about we elect a president based on how well they can run this country instead of which types of people they hate?
 
Running a-puck
2007-03-15 4:48:29 PM  
*mutter*

No, come out and farking tell me what you believe. Or at the very least tell me from what stance you are going to legislate .
 
carmody
2007-03-15 4:50:01 PM  
At least she didn't consult a poll before answering, which is her usual M.O.
 
Bf+
2007-03-15 4:50:11 PM  
Apparently "others" = Obama

"As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."

- BHO
 
Running a-puck
2007-03-15 4:52:30 PM  
Bf+: As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years. - Obama

Damn I like that man more and more.
 
ikanreed
2007-03-15 4:52:59 PM  
If she had said "individuals to conclude for themselves" I'd say it was enough to actually make me like her. This is not that, though it might have been what she meant.
 
The Homer Tax [TotalFark]
2007-03-15 4:53:12 PM  
Yikes, Hill said something I actually agree with. It shouldn't matter what she farking thinks about the morality/immorality of buttsecks, because that's not something the government should give a fark about anyway.
 
crunch-o-matic
2007-03-15 4:53:44 PM  
I'm guessing this is the bottom of the barrel cause it doesn't get more pathetic than this.
 
Unright
2007-03-15 4:54:17 PM  
Isn't this similar to Kerry position on gay marriage? i.e., let the States pass their own amendments according to the wishes of their population.

/Not a horrible proposition...
 
revskippy
2007-03-15 4:57:59 PM  
You know, I hate that woman. But that's the right answer. The only person she should concern herself about deciding that fact for is herself.

It's not the governments place to decide anything about a persons sexual orientation. It's also not really the state or local governments job either.
 
Sloth_DC
2007-03-15 5:03:34 PM  
Unright: Isn't this similar to Kerry position on gay marriage? i.e., let the States pass their own amendments according to the wishes of their population.

/Not a horrible proposition...

Well, he said he would support a MA constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but allowing civil unions. In other words, he's pro-segregation, but anti-slavery.
 
VulgarMind
2007-03-15 5:23:05 PM  
Better question. Why is this a legitimate question? If this is the land of the free, what say in the matter does the government have pertaining to the lives of consenting adults?
 
CravenMorehead
2007-03-15 5:23:27 PM  
She is killing herself. She won't even be a top 3 contender in a year.

How hard would it be to say "no" to that question and find a few more supporters? Idiot.
 
Running a-puck
2007-03-15 5:25:31 PM  
VulgarMind: Better question. Why is this a legitimate question? If this is the land of the free, what say in the matter does the government have pertaining to the lives of consenting adults?

Because depending on what you like to do with consenting adults you are not free.

In theory I absolutely agree with you, as it stands now I want to know what these people think about issues that they may be making (ok signing) laws about.
 
downtownkid
2007-03-15 5:35:49 PM  
VulgarMind: "Better question. Why is this a legitimate question?"

Let's see, 'don't ask don't tell', anti-sodomy laws in many states, the ongoing controversy about gay marriage/civil unions, et cetera. I'd call it a very legitimate question.
 
revskippy
2007-03-15 5:48:19 PM  
I agree that it's a legitimate question with the number of laws and such regarding such activity that the president would possibly be asked for input regarding.

I just also think that "it's not the governments business" is the right answer and that "yes" and "no" are personal statements which shouldn't enter into it.

OTOH, I agree that any answer to that question will cost her voters somewhere. Which means her answer was the best one politically. Which is her doing what she does well...
 
Hexar
2007-03-15 5:58:13 PM  
Is there anyone outside of the Republican Party that actually wants her to run?
 
Running a-puck
2007-03-15 6:05:06 PM  
Hexar: Is there anyone outside of the Republican Party that actually wants her to run?

All the die hard Dems that I know personally do not.
 
Gulper Eel
2007-03-15 6:21:10 PM  
revskippy: It's also not really the state or local governments job either.

Whoa there. Sacrilege.

This is New York she's representing, and so Albany gets to determine whether you fold or crumple the toilet paper when you wipe your ass.

/perfect answer would've been "i'll try it out and get back to you on that one"
 
d'art
2007-03-15 6:23:28 PM  
That's actually a clever, nuanced answer. However, what 2004 has shown us is that the majority of Americans are dumb as bricks and don't understand clever, nuanced answers (I supposed the war before I was against it).
 
greyseal
2007-03-15 6:27:28 PM  
You know, I hate that woman. But that's the right answer. The only person she should concern herself about deciding that fact for is herself.

Wrong wrong wrong.

The correct answer from any viable Democratic candidate is "no, I do not agree." If she feels the need to elaborate and say something like "no, I do not agree, but I can't dictate the morals of others," then so be it. But she didn't.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the question, her answer is important because we need to know that the people who represent us in government don't harbor potentially dangerous prejudices about the citizens of our country. "Do you think black people are inferior?" may be a stupid question, but if asked, her answer better damn well be "NO!" and not "I'll leave that for others to decide."

Hillary is a political prostitute who will say whatever she needs to further her chances of staying in power. It's time the Dems call her on it.

/registered Democrat
/liberal
/terrified of President Hillary Clinton
 
Pintosbiehn
2007-03-15 6:43:37 PM  
greyseal

way to fall for it.

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
 
Delaware_Bill
2007-03-15 7:07:03 PM  
Hillary Clinton and her pandering on every fukking thing just continues to dissapoint me. Not that I would vote for him but the same thing goes for McCain. They both want the Presidency too bad, something really wrong with that.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-03-15 7:13:09 PM  
Hexar: Is there anyone outside of the Republican Party that actually wants her to run?

I'm not registered with either party so although I can't really speak for Republicans, I do tilt to the right more or less.

And I could not care less if she runs or not. She's totally unelectable.
 
inFARKshun
2007-03-15 8:02:04 PM  
Fark you, Hillary.

This kind of bullshiat is exactly why I will never vote for her.
 
inFARKshun
2007-03-15 8:11:02 PM  
Reading the addendum to the article shows that she's not totally afraid of answering the question.

/still won't vote for Hillary
 
ConBeGone
2007-03-15 10:46:12 PM  
Lol hillary is like Obamas punching bag or cannon fodder. She keeps slipping in the polls and he keep gaining. The repugs will use all their ammo on her and whe she doesn't get the nod and obama does he will be sqeeky clean
 
cltbuilder
2007-03-15 10:50:44 PM  
Lord woman...that comment couldn't have been designed to piss off both sides of the debate any better had you tried.
 
mrexcess
2007-03-15 11:49:06 PM  
Non-story. The only convictions I expect Hillary to possess are kind that involve possible jail time.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want to see behind the curtain? Try

TotalFark

It's how we feed the squirrel

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.