Why are so many Democrats seemingly indifferent about the more plausible scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton?
Not a Democrat - I’m from the UK.But “The more plausible scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton”?It’s been quite obvious for a long time that the Republican Party has been throwing stuff against the wall and trying to make any of it stick. Reaching way back to the Whitewater nonsense - a land deal on which the Clintons lost money. And for a while that was the best they could do. A land deal where the Clintons lost money was the lead proof of corruption.Then there’s “Bill slept with Monica” scandal. The Republican Party spent almost $40 million in the Starr investigation looking for dirt on the Clintons - and all they could find to show for a $40 million investigation (plus about $40 million in other investigations) is that Bill Clinton slept with an intern. You spend $40 million investigating me and I’m pretty sure I won’t turn up that clean.Moving on from Bill Clinton to Hillary, there are two major “scandals” to her name. The first is the fact that just as Colin Powell and Condi Rice did she had her own email server and deleted emails from it. What all three of them did would now be illegal - but to use a post-facto law against Hillary Clinton is ridiculous and outright unconstitutional. She’s clean on that one. And then there’s the ridiculous Benghazi nonsense.In short the Republicans have spent somewhere round $100 million investigating the Clintons and come up with as their main points “Bill Clinton slept with an intern”, “Hillary Clinton didn’t follow post hoc laws”, and “a US embassy got bombed on her watch”.If you were to have told me that with an investigation budget of $100 then I might look at your other claims seriously. If those are your lead points with an investigation budget of $100,000,000 then I’m pretty sure the reason you dug nothing else up is that there’s nothing else to find and the idea that the other scandals are anything other than hot air is very dubious. Based on how much effort has been spent trying and failing to find substantial dirt on them, the Clintons might just be the cleanest politicians in history.
Why does it seem like many Republicans dislike people who are different from them? Is what comes across as intolerance actually fear?
Put me down for a second verse of Marcia Peterson Buckie's observation -- it's amazing to me that there's such a willingness to chalk everything up to "the media" and Democratic strategists and so little interest in examining why your own message might render your party unlikeable.Let's see... your 2008 VP candidate (Palin) proclaimed yourselves "Real Americans(tm)", implying that anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, something less.Your 2012 Presidential candidate (Romney) called people who disagree with you "takers" looking for a handout. No, that's not insulting at all millions of Americans who ARE working (often more than one job) but just can't make ends meet and could use a little help.You have a 2012 Presidential candidate (Santorum) who routinely compares gay sex to incest and bestiality, and you wonder why most gays don't think you have their best interests at heart.You have a guy who very vocally mulled a 2012 Presidential bid but ultimately didn't run (Trump) continue to treat the President as some nefarious "other" because of his brown skin and funny "Mooslim"-sounding name. (Never mind that as the party of states' rights, once the state of Hawai'i certified his paperwork, that should've been the end of it, right?). UNFATHOMABLE that most black people don't think you're on their side!And those aren't some lunatic fringe or "vocal minority" -- they're people who were running for the very leadership of the party.
Advice for someone about to get an afghan hound?
Oh Goodness gracious. I can't believe that people parroting nonesense from that stupid book "The Intelligence of Dogs" by Stanley Coren. What a load of horse poop. There's a big difference in a dog being "smart" and a dog being "biddable". Certain breeds were bred to work **With** man. Like sporting breeds, gun dogs, herding breeds. This make them biddable or easy to train. People think that "easy to train" means that the dog is smart. Then there are breeds bred to think for themselves and work **independent** of man. Terriers, hounds, both scent and sight are bred to think for themselves. This does not make them stupid. This makes them creative thinkers. Not everyone can own a hound or a terrier, it takes special people. Do you have the patience for the antics of a hound or a dog that will turn a deaf ear to you? Are you willing to own a dog that doesn't jump at your beck and call? Are you looking for a dog that is independant? Read, read, read up on Afghans...then read some more. Go to dog shows, talk to the Afghan hound people. Easy to train does not equal smart. Go to Dogwise.com and find some books on Afghan Hounds. Go to the Afghan Hound Club of America website and read it. Again, find some shows talk to owner, breeder handlers. BTW, I own scenthounds (dachshunds). I would consider a sighthound in the future, probably a Whippet.