- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 5:44 pm
You last visited
April 17, 2024, 5:44 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Condi Rice and Bill Clinton - both angry
Published:
A lot of talk has been made in the blogs lately about Bill Clinton's hidden bad temper and red-faced anger. Condi Rice has been phographed the last two days making the meanest and ugliest faces I've ever seen on a woman since Linda Blair in "The Exorcist".
I don't care who's taking the pictures, when you catch images of 'Sybil' in a photograph of yourself, it's time for the public relations department to step in and train you in facial control and photogenesis, no matter what your party affiliation is.
This is not a political statement...this is a case of an attractive woman making herself look very ugly. I think she's scaring the kids. I know she's scaring me.
Comments
Ah gee. Clinton's mad. Ah gee. Some pretty woman made him mad.
Likely as not those red faces are the reason the prediction page ain't been updating, the top predictor list, the site's been down so much and when it's up you can't post, or can post and it vanishes.
I don't know much about global warming. If I thought it was something I could do something about if it's a problem, I'd do a web search to learn about it. I don't care one way or the other about Clinton and some talking head female having a spat, whatever the reason.
But I do care whether the site's down a bunch, whether I can navigate it, whether the services I use work. But I don't know much more about that than I do about global warming, or Clinton. Can't do anything about that, either, so it's also none of my business.
Maybe it's the environmentalists doing it.
Jack
As far as looks go, anyone can look bad in a photo. If a photographer catches you in the right (or in this case "wrong") light, he can make a subject look 10 years older too. I have always felt that Ms Rice is a stunning woman, but we shouldn't judge any person in authority by his or her looks. I agree that Ms Rice gets a lot of criticism because she is a female. So does Hillary Clinton, another very intelligent and well educated woman who is insulted in the press all the time.
When Clinton first ran for office I was embarrassed for the many women who said they wanted to vote for him because he was handsome. If looks mattered, then Richard Gere would be in the White House. Why anyone cares is beyond my comprehension. I think George W. is a very nice looking man and I still can't stand him!
There ya' go again. I wasn't comparing Condi Rice to Clinton. I didn't insult her intelligence (I know she's smart and she does her job well.) In no way am I discriminating against her (that sounded a little PC to me). I was simply stating a fact as I have seen it in recent photographs of the lady. She has been shown snarling and glowering in several different photographs. If it were Hillary Clinton I would have made the same observation.
The only reason I used Clinton in the blog title is because konane and you both wrote blogs about Clinton's anger and in konane's, the reporter compared Clinton's angry face to the "dark red of hamburger meat that's been spoiling on the counter."
This is not a political issue. It's a self control issue and it affects Republicans and Democrats alike.
Condi is not "making herself look very ugly" (your exact quote). Any photographer can catch someone in an unflattering pose, as was apparently the case here. I did not see the photograph you're referring to, not that it matters.
And JE, I do not place a very high regard on the education system, as you apparently do. "Rhodes Scholar" means very little to me, and is not indicative of intelligence in my book. Clinton's attendance at Oxford is nothing special to me either. I think he's clever and wily, but I would not award him with terms such as "intelligent", because I have not seen a lot of evidence to that effect. Condi, on the other hand, has demonstrated brilliance.
You can interpret what I write any way you want. I can also disagree with your interpretation, so you and I can give it a rest and let the readers make their own interpretation.
By the way, I'm a Libertarian not a liberal Democrat. There's a big difference. Neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush would have been nominated from that party.
I totally respect the Libertarian viewpoint, but I just feel that it goes to a theoretical limit, rather than a realistic one. It's like if you held up a ruler that measured government intrusion in our lives, with complete intrusion (socialism, dictatorship) on the left, and lack of government (choas, anarchy) on the right, I think we would both end up on the right side of the ruler, but you would be a bit further along than me.
Of course, from the Libertarian viewpoint, the right-most side of that ruler would probably be labeled "John Lennon" or something. ;-)
I have called for election reform involving voting among all candidates, regardless of party or how many of the same party are running on the ballot. It could be 30 people on the ballot, I don't care. They do this in many of the other "democratic" nations of the world. This would take place of a "primary" and take place 30 days before election day. The top three vote-getters are given consideration. If one of those candidates has over 50% of the popular national vote in that initial election that candidate is the winner of the final election. If not, then the top two vote-getters are placed in a runoff election on election day and the national popular vote decides the winner, not the electoral college.
With honest voting practices and honest competition among a field of contenders there wouldn't be as much a need for recounts and it would allow third parties or strong second choices of the same party to have an equal chance to be elected and better reflect the wishes of the American voters.
The current two-party system of primaries and voting is not cutting it, is opening itself to fraud and the electoral college was something instituted when the population was a fraction of what it is today.
This is why voters are dis-enfranchised and the political polarity and lack of voter participation is higher than ever today.
As far as voting Libertarian, I sleep well at night because I didn't help vote Bill Clinton or George Bush into office, I voted for my principles and am proud of it. One day the Democratic and Republican parties will not have a stranglehold on our politics and principles will once again come to the forefront of our thinking and decision-making in the polling booths.
Post a Comment
Please Log In
To use this feature you must be logged into your Lottery Post account.
Not a member yet?
If you don't yet have a Lottery Post account, it's simple and free to create one! Just tap the Register button and after a quick process you'll be part of our lottery community.
Register