[Merged] Why Hillary Clinton Will Not Be The Democratic Nominee for President

[Bill Thompson]

Enjoy:
http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/billthompson/19810

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wanna bet ;) ?

I think the reasons were a tad silly.

[Bill Thompson]

maybe I should have posted this in the sub group of the 2008 elections.

[Bill Thompson]

Wanna bet ;) ?

I think the reasons were a tad silly.

People are silly animals.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

People are silly animals.

Quite true.

[Bill Thompson]

I started to make this thread in the Politics thread before I noticed that the Presidential Elections had its own Topics area.

Here are my first 12 reasons (number 12 is added to the bottom)
http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/billthompson/19810

And here is number 13

(#13) Communism

Is Hillary Clinton a communist? Don't laugh. If she is or isn't, it is still a reason why she won't have enough support to get the Democratic Nominee for President because enough of her ideas seem hard left enough to make people wonder, and enough of what she has said in the past seems Marxist enough to make people wonder.

Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser on June 28th, 2004, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson made it clear that Americans should take careful note of Clinton's remarks.

"This is John Kerry's Democratic party," she said. "Small-business owners and taxpayers all across America should be very, very concerned."

Kerry and Clinton, Iverson said, are people who "believe the government knows how to spend your own money better than you do."

Iverson acknowledged Clinton's use of the term "common good" was telling, evoking the language of Karl Marx, who envisioned a society that distributes wealth "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

I have friends who live in countries that call themself "communist". But in reality, communism is on the decline and has shown itself to be a failure. Even these "communist" countries are no longer embracing hard-line communism. China has had to modernise and move away from a centralized and controled economy, Even Vietnam has loosened its communist ideology and now, ironically, is suppored by the free market cultures in the south.

Communism basically is the philosophy that everyone should work for the common good. This, I have learned is a falsehood simply by talking to friends who have fled communist countries. To put it simply, there is no such thing as the common good.

A centralized economy which illuminates a free market is destined to failure. A market driven economy allows for the evolution and betterment of good and services by simple natural selection. A centralized economy could not possibly compete or do a nearly equal task.

Communism denies the existence of, and tries to suppress, simple forces of Nature and Economics.

Hillary Clinton is an ideological dinosaur.

Towards the end of the Soviet Union, economists in both Poland and in the USSR gathered (albeit in secret) and discussed and conclued that a communist economy would not be able to compete with a free market economy.

The kind of world Hillary CLinton has in mind would be a horrific failure. She believes in an ideology that has been proven wrong, time after time.

She has been raised and nurtured into a political system that no longer has any validity in the modern world. What is more is that she has been taught, like a true Marxist, that her gaining power to promote her ideology is to be acquired by any means possible. This is what accounts to her criminal and devious and underhanded political maneuvers.

It is fortunate that the hard left cannot exist in the kind of modern world that Lennon, Stalin and Marx could not imagine. They could not have for seen a world networked together by computers and free thought. Because of today's world, Hillary Clinton is exposed. Hillary Clinton does not have a chance.

[mrbaracuda]

You're not affiliated with Fred, are you, Mr Thompson? :boxedin: :p

[Dr Adequate]

Is Hillary Clinton a communist? No.

Don't laugh. That's easy for you to say, but, pray tell me, how am I meant not to laugh?

That's like putting a chloroform-soaked rag over my face and saying: "Don't pass out". It's like dropping me off the top a a tall building and saying: "Don't fall". It's like putting me in a tub of warm oil with nubile Japanese triplets and saying: "Don't get horny". It's like dosing me with LSD and saying: "Don't hallucinate". It's ...

It's not very well thought out, is it?

[AgeGap]

14) She would buck the trend that the President is not as smart as his wife.

[Darat]

I've read a bit about what she has said her policies will be and although they seem very fluffy-wuffy I haven't seen one that could even be considered left-of-centre never mind hard left.

Which "hard left" policies are you referring to?

[SezMe]

I haven't heard any commentator or Republican accuse Clinton of being a Communist...much less hard-left. She's pretty much a centrist and certainly a big supporter of capitalism. Raising the specter of Communism in 2008 puts your political thinking about 50 years old. It says much more about you than Clinton.

"This is John Kerry's Democratic party," she said. "Small-business owners and taxpayers all across America should be very, very concerned."
This is silly. Small-business owners and (middle- and lower-class) taxpayers are the very people who have been royally screwed by Bush and the Republican tax policies.

I don't know whether Clinton will be the nominee but if not it will have absolutely nothing to do with your nonsensical, outdated, paranoid rationale. Do try to catch up to, oh, say, the 1990s.

[Nogbad]

No.



I tried to put it more succinctly but couldn't :)

What a bizzare notion!

[volatile]

It is fortunate that the hard left cannot exist in the kind of modern world that Lennon, Stalin and Marx could not imagine. They could not have for seen a world networked together by computers and free thought. Because of today's world, Hillary Clinton is exposed. Hillary Clinton does not have a chance.

John Lennon was a Communist?

[Darat]

Well communists do tend to be ******* and John Lennon was a ******** .....

[Nogbad]

John Lennon was a Communist?


He tried to write Lenin but his pen exploded.

[Damien Evans]

John Lennon was a Communist?

well, he did write Imagine...

[Tricky]

Communism basically is the philosophy that everyone should work for the common good. This, I have learned is a falsehood simply by talking to friends who have fled communist countries. To put it simply, there is no such thing as the common good.
There's not? So the founding fathers of the US were wrong? Each colony should have remained separate? Laws are not made for the common good?

You don't do your case any favors by making indefensable statements like this... not that your case has any merit anyway. I think you'll be surprised how little life changes under President Hillary.

[Dr Adequate]

"I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens." --- George W Bush, First Inaugural Address (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/gbush1.htm)

OMG TEH COMMUNISMS!!!

[Gnu World Order]

I think it's safe to say I won't be following Bill's link to his first 12 reasons.

[Nogbad]

I think it's safe to say I won't be following Bill's link to his first 12 reasons.

I think you speak for many of us ;)

Dr A is right, his Bush senior quote is a veritable multiple orgasm of communisms.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Communism is socialism with a violent revolution. All you've tried to do is show her to be a socialist, not communist.

Don't all our taxes go to the common good?

Wait a minute...

"... permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good.”
-Nazi Party

OMG Hillary is teh NAZI Ice QUEEN!!!11

[kallsop]

As long as uneducated young single women are allowed to vote, her strongest demographic, Hillary can win. Then consider the weak republican candidates and a victory for ANY democrat is believable.

[Loss Leader]

I think it's safe to say I won't be following Bill's link to his first 12 reasons.


He's got Whitewater listed as reason number 8 and Barbara Olsen down as a reliable source. It's pretty clear that there is no allegation ever made about the Clintons that he disbelieves no matter how thoroughly it has been debunked.

Has no Republican even glanced at The Hunting of the President?

[JoeEllison]

Sounds like a bunch of stupidity to me. Look at the first one for example: Hillary Clinton isn't a liberal or progressive, and actually liberals/progressives don't particularly support her. The second point contains a couple of falsehoods, the third links Hillary Clinton to 9/11. The fourth and fifth are unsubstantiated smear, the sixth seems weak at best, seven I have no idea about but it sounds silly.

Number eight is a sign that the guy who wrote it is an ****** moron.

Number 9 directly contradicts number 1, and contains a misleading graph.

Number 10 is opinion, based mostly on the lack of reasoning that fuels the entire list.

Number 11 belongs in some 4th grader's list.

Overall, the guy who wrote that list is deluded or a liar, because his list doesn't add up to much at all. I don't much like Hillary Clinton, she's way down on my list of people I'd prefer to vote for... but my reasons not to vote for her are based on facts, not peevishness, lies, and partisan spin.

[Lurker]

The author of this dreck should be ashamed. He uses the term "unconceivable"! LOL I like how he tells us about the investigations of the Clintons but somehow fails to mention the lack of charges brought against the Clintons. Lack of evidence of wrongdoing? Who cares, they are Clintons and guilty even when proven innocent.

[Lurker]

Overall, the guy who wrote that list is deluded or a liar, because his list doesn't add up to much at all. I don't much like Hillary Clinton, she's way down on my list of people I'd prefer to vote for... but my reasons not to vote for her are based on facts, not peevishness, lies, and partisan spin.


Admit it, Joe. You're just a Clinton hack!

[JoeEllison]

Admit it, Joe. You're just a Clinton hack!

Look, that thing with the stand-up cardboard Hillary Clinton and the machete while wearing a Kucinich For Prez T-shirt was expunged from my record, so I would appreciate you not bringing it up in the future.

[Upchurch]

I merged the two threads. I apologize for any confusion in conversation flow this may cause.

(it couldn't be more confusing than it was for me to perform the merger.)

[steverino]

As long as uneducated young single women are allowed to vote, her strongest demographic, Hillary can win.

Evidence?

How does someone polling others determine if a woman is "uneducated?" :confused:

[Upchurch]

How does someone polling others determine if a woman is "uneducated?" :confused:
Well, you could ask their education level. Depending on how you want to interpret the results you could define "uneducated" as "lacking a high school diploma", "lacking a college diploma", etc.

[Supercharts]

Canada weighs in...

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=197547

eh?

[steverino]

Well, you could ask their education level. Depending on how you want to interpret the results you could define "uneducated" as "lacking a high school diploma", "lacking a college diploma", etc.

Based on this method, I am quite uneducated. :blush:

[Supercharts]

Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise." (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 - Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

"You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!" (From the book "Inside" by Joseph Califano, p. 213 - Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.)

F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you ****-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut." (From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."

"You f**king idiot." (From the book "Crossfire" p. 84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!" (From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p. 89 - Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I s ay, Okay!!!?" (From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

< Think about this folks - should Hillary Clinton be in charge of the US Military - how about the nuclear codes? Does she sound like a people person? Why are 40% of the public conned into supporting this wiccan marxist? >

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!"(From the book "The Survivor," by John Harris, p. 382 - Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

"Where's the miserable c*ck sucker?" (From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

"No matter what you think about the Iraq war, there is one thing we can all agree on for the next days - we have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote." (Was posted on Hillary Clinton's senate.gov web site on 1/28/05)

"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!" (From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 - Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

A right-wing network was after his presidency…including perverting the Constitution." (To Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)

"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!" (From the book "The Survivor" by John Harris, p. 99 - Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the White House)

"I mean, you've got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum." (C-Span, 1/19/1997 - Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)

"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!" (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" (From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

"You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight your friends." (From the book "The Agenda" by Bob Woodward, ch. 14)

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 119 - During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 68 - Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 - Hillary in 1996)

[Loss Leader]

And there's a tape of LBJ discusing his testicles with his taylor. ess enn oh arr eeh.

[Bill Thompson]

You're not affiliated with Fred, are you, Mr Thompson? :boxedin: :p

No. I am not even a real Thompson. George Sephanopolous' ancestors did not change his family's last name to Stevenson, but my grandfather decided to change Athanasopolus.

But that is a cute remark.

I am glad this post has gotten some interest. I have something to study in my free time.

[Bill Thompson]

Sounds like a bunch of stupidity to me. Look at the first one for example: Hillary Clinton isn't a liberal or progressive, and actually liberals/progressives don't particularly support her. The second point contains a couple of falsehoods, the third links Hillary Clinton to 9/11. The fourth and fifth are unsubstantiated smear, the sixth seems weak at best, seven I have no idea about but it sounds silly.

Number eight is a sign that the guy who wrote it is an ****** moron.


What falsehoods are on the second point?

The third does not try to link Hillary Clinton to 9/11. Try reading it again.

Number 8 needs some revision but, still, in the public mind, there was anticipation about Whitewater in Ken Star's report. When it was not there, the impression was that it must because it pointed to Hillary and not to Bill. Although that is all old news and Whitewater no longer points to Hillary, it does point to people close to her. So, she is not a crook, she just was closely associated with crooks.

And even if this is a case of smoke with no fire, it is still a lasting impression. And image counts.

I don't think that just because this guy got one point wrong -- he was in a rush to get this on line -- he is a moron. And even if he was a moron, the proper term is "mentally challenged". Just like you, sir, are "kindness impared".


Number 9 directly contradicts number 1, and contains a misleading graph.


How does the Iraq war contradict the fact that Hillary's Predency will not be like Bill's presidency?

How is the graph misleading. It is spot right on. It is accurate. And, in fact, it leads in the right direction and it reflects clearly the burden each war had on the country. Just look around you (if you are living in the USA) the financial hardship suffered by the popularion today is hardly nocticable. It is as if we are in peacetime, instead of war.

Number 10 is opinion, based mostly on the lack of reasoning that fuels the entire list.

When Bill Clinton suggested publicly that the plan might require some negotiation and compromise in order to see it come to reality, his wife called him on the phone and the next day Bill Clinton made a public retraction.

That is a fact. That is an event that actually happened. THis is what Number 10 is based on.

And it does not fuel the entire list.


Number 11 belongs in some 4th grader's list.



It is still a reason why she will not become the democratic nominee. I never said they were mature reasons.



Overall, the guy who wrote that list is deluded or a liar, because his list doesn't add up to much at all. I don't much like Hillary Clinton, she's way down on my list of people I'd prefer to vote for... but my reasons not to vote for her are based on facts, not peevishness, lies, and partisan spin.

So far I have shown I am neither deluded nor a liar. I think you are mean and do not spend time to read what I really wrote. I got just one point wrong that I need to rewrite. But even so, this blog is about perception. It is how people preceive Hillary Clinton and why this perception will prevent her from becoming the nominee.

Also, since the graph is contrary to the media spin that you have been subjected to, your immediate responce is that it must be "misleading". I think you, sir, are the one who is deluded.

[SezMe]

I don't think that just because this guy got one point wrong <snip>

......

I think you are mean and do not spend time to read what I really wrote. I got just one point wrong that I need to rewrite.
I'm having trouble figuring out who the original author is. Is it you or not.

[Dr Adequate]

Why are 40% of the public conned into supporting this wiccan marxist? If there's some sort of competition going on between you and Bill Thompson, you just took the lead.

[Bill Thompson]

No.

That's easy for you to say, but, pray tell me, how am I meant not to laugh?

That's like putting a chloroform-soaked rag over my face and saying: "Don't pass out". It's like dropping me off the top a a tall building and saying: "Don't fall". It's like putting me in a tub of warm oil with nubile Japanese triplets and saying: "Don't get horny". It's like dosing me with LSD and saying: "Don't hallucinate". It's ...

It's not very well thought out, is it?

I do not understand you. You do not give any reason why you think what I said was wrong. Just colorful distraction is not good enough.

People DO think that Hillary is a communist or close to being one ideologically. THere are bumpersitickers that say "Redefeat Communism in '08". So I have phyisical evidience that this is what people think.

I also gave reasons why people think this way.

You gave no counter reasons or arguments.

Why did you even bother to make this post?

[Brainster]

And here is number 13

(#13) Communism

Why in the world do you think this would rule out her representing the Democrats? Isn't that sort of considered a basic qualification?

:D

[Trakar]

People DO think that Hillary is a communist or close to being one ideologically.

Which people? Goose-stepping reich-wing FuXsnooz-bots?

Seriously, no one in the Democratic Party even thinks of her as particularly liberal or progressive, yet alone communist, and you are talking about the people who will be choosing her (or as you propose "not choosing her") as their representative. The argumants you make might hold some sway in red-state trailerparks and deer camps, but they really aren't positions any of the people who will be nominating her to be their party's candidate are going todo more than chuckle at.

[Lurker]

People DO think that Hillary is a communist or close to being one ideologically. THere are bumpersitickers that say "Redefeat Communism in '08". So I have phyisical evidience that this is what people think.

How many of those people will be voting in the Democratic primary? I am presuming approximately 0% as most of those with that bumper sticker are voting in the GOP primary.

Those votes may count in the general election but the title of your thread questions whether Clinton will be the nominee, not the President. Thus, your physical evidence" is moot.

[Dr Adequate]

I do not understand you. You do not give any reason why you think what I said was wrong. I was answering a question, not rebutting a statement.

You asked if she was a communist. I said "no".

For further information, compare the policies that she advocates with those contained in the Communist Manifesto.

People DO think that Hillary is a communist or close to being one ideologically. Other people think that the FBI is listening to their thoughts, that aliens built the Pyramids, and that Uri Geller bends spoons by means of Satanic intervention.

And the name for these people is "idiots".

THere are bumpersitickers that say "Redefeat Communism in '08". So I have phyisical evidience that this is what people think. "Think" is probably too strong a word.

I also gave reasons why people think this way. Not all the reasons. You did not, for example, mention marriage of first cousins.

[latent aaaack]

If this election is as close as the last two then it's likely Clinton will lose because of the fact that at least a few percentage points of the population is still sexist.

[Darat]

I do not understand you. You do not give any reason why you think what I said was wrong. Just colorful distraction is not good enough.

People DO think that Hillary is a communist or close to being one ideologically. THere are bumpersitickers that say "Redefeat Communism in '08". So I have phyisical evidience that this is what people think.

I also gave reasons why people think this way.

You gave no counter reasons or arguments.

Why did you even bother to make this post?

The reason there is no counter argument is that there is no evidence being presented that she is a communist or even ideologically close to being one. Once that evidence is presented then it can perhaps be discussed.

[latent aaaack]

Well communists do tend to be ******* and John Lennon was a ******** .....

I knew what he really wanted to hold was our land. :mad:

[ConspiRaider]

If this election is as close as the last two then it's likely Clinton will lose because of the fact that at least a few percentage points of the population is still sexist.
Probably more than just a few percentage points, L.A. :)

And more than a few percentage points are racist.

Hillary, of course, should NOT lose, given the realities of the Six Left Standing at this point in time. In a rational sense. But how can American voters be judged rational, as a whole? When SlobberSlurryStupidFace was "elected" in 2000, and then we did it again in 2004? We can never underestimate the potential stupidity and ignorance of the American voter. Not all. But way way way too many.

Of the six: Hillary, Edwards, Obama, McCain, Romney and Huckabee - Hillary is simply the best candidate. Edwards would be okay if he makes it in. Obama - if somehow he gets into the Oval Office (doubtful), is going to have an exceedingly divisive 4 years in office, similar to Carter. Watch what the GOPers in the House and Senate do to obstruct him. It'll be Stalemate City over there in The Swamp. And of course the 3 Republican candidates are all crazy-bat-loon-idiots.

If we're smart - we'll put Hillary Clinton in the White House. Hope we're smart.

GO
HILLARY!

[Trakar]

Probably more than just a few percentage points, L.A. :)

And more than a few percentage points are racist.

Hillary, of course, should NOT lose, given the realities of the Six Left Standing at this point in time. In a rational sense. But how can American voters be judged rational, as a whole? When SlobberSlurryStupidFace was "elected" in 2000, and then we did it again in 2004? We can never underestimate the potential stupidity and ignorance of the American voter. Not all. But way way way too many.

Of the six: Hillary, Edwards, Obama, McCain, Romney and Huckabee - Hillary is simply the best candidate. Edwards would be okay if he makes it in. Obama - if somehow he gets into the Oval Office (doubtful), is going to have an exceedingly divisive 4 years in office, similar to Carter. Watch what the GOPers in the House and Senate do to obstruct him. It'll be Stalemate City over there in The Swamp. And of course the 3 Republican candidates are all crazy-bat-loon-idiots.

The only difference my perspective sees is that there is little or no difference between Hillary and Obama in any of these regards.

[ConspiRaider]

The only difference my perspective sees is that there is little or no difference between Hillary and Obama in any of these regards.
Ah, but there are tremendous differences.

Hillary and Barack are similar on many Democratic platform issues, but being the President is not just about your stance on issues. And actually if you look at their positions on the issues, Hillary's imply greater depth and detail.

I'm projecting either of them being in the White House, and then visualizing how such an administration would function. What progress could be achieved. Because this is NOT a throwaway election, where we can hand pretty much anyone the Presidential Seal and then be on autopilot for the next 4 years. We've had presidencies like that. But not this time. Too much going on. Nasty wars - started by us - need solutions. Fuel accessibility and pricing. Global warming, dealing with the hardships caused by its consequences. China flexing its big economic muscles and then maybe military muscles - and where that might lead. Competing currencies (Euro vs. Dollar) and its fallout. Immigration policy. Health care access and cost, coupled with the huge bloc of an aging American populace segment (baby boomers). Scramble for economic dominance and navigational access as the polar ice cap melting opens new shipping via the Northwest Passage. World hunger, lack of potable water to millions, lack of medicine or decent living standards for millions - the standard horrors we still have not solved. Pollution, consequences of genetic engineering, species extinctions, deforestation...

One of the advantages of putting this sharp woman, Hillary Clinton, in the Oval Office is that you also get Bill. That's 8 years of Presidential experience, and another 8 as a world-welcoming ambassador with his current activities (such as raising millions to fight AIDS, help disaster victims, etc.). Wow. That should be seen as a giant asset, based on today's circumstances. And we know Hillary is no pushover. It isn't as if she'd attain the Oval Office, and then take orders from Bill on everything. Nope. But the two of them working in tandem, or even in opposition on some issues? It can force better solutions to materialize. And problem-solving - the real thing, not SlobberSlurryStupidFace's homespun definition of such - is what we need in 2009. We need canyonfuls of solutions.

Obama - green and untested as he is - is going to spend quite a bit of time just trying to feel comfy as President. We can't afford a looooooong breaking-in period for this next President. We really do need to hit the ground running. Hillary can do that. And the House and Senate, I believe, will work with her more seamlessly than with Obama.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[SezMe]

I'm not sure I'd put Bill in the asset column. The past couple of weeks he's made a gigantic ass of himself. Not good portent.

Then consider what happened under him. No health care. NAFTA and WTO, policies that have done more harm to the middle class than all of Bush's tax idiocy. Short to non-existent coattails for the down-ticket Dems. He's a charter member of the Corporatest Club. No, all things considered, Bill's record leaves much to be desired and I can't imagine he's changed his stripes on such issues since leaving office.

[ConspiRaider]

I'm not sure I'd put Bill in the asset column. The past couple of weeks he's made a gigantic ass of himself. Not good portent.

Then consider what happened under him. No health care. NAFTA and WTO, policies that have done more harm to the middle class than all of Bush's tax idiocy. Short to non-existent coattails for the down-ticket Dems. He's a charter member of the Corporatest Club. No, all things considered, Bill's record leaves much to be desired and I can't imagine he's changed his stripes on such issues since leaving office.
You sound like a Republican talking point.

If you cannot see Bill Clinton as an asset, then whom would you consider an asset: George Bush? Stop parroting what the Republican press wants you to parrot. You probably think Reagan was a great president. Holy friggin' Toledo. For Clinton:

Longest period of economic growth in the nation's history.

Left office with a federal surplus.

Left office with an approval rating near 70%.

Raised minimum wage.

Caught the WTC terrorist bombers.

Pushed heavily for health care reform - rejected by Republican-controlled Congress.

Navigated through the difficult Kosovo situation effectively. They've got a Clinton Boulevard over there. A statue of him. A 5-story picture of him engraved into the wall of the tallest building.

Clinton was only about 105,000 times more effective a president than the fool in the Oval Office now. That's why the Republicans spend millions smearing Clinton. They can't stand success. They can't stand good Americans. Remember how they minimized the honoring of another good American when he became a Nobel laureate? Al Gore?

Today: Big time humanitarian. That's not an asset? What? Are you crazy?

His foundation has helped bring care and treatment to about 750,000 AIDS/HIV patients across the world.

More here:
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I haven't heard any commentator or Republican accuse Clinton of being a Communist...much less hard-left. She's pretty much a centrist and certainly a big supporter of capitalism. Raising the specter of Communism in 2008 puts your political thinking about 50 years old. It says much more about you than Clinton.

That is because you are looking at two sides of the same coin presented by the mint.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

GO
HILLARY!

Don't worry, she is the next president. These things are pre-determined.


If voting mattered "they" wouldn't let you vote. :o

[SezMe]

That is because you are looking at two sides of the same coin presented by the mint.
Look, JEROME DA IDIOT, instead of this nonsensical response, how 'bout rebutting my assertions with counterfactual evidence? Ya know, those pesky things called facts.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Look, JEROME DA IDIOT, instead of this nonsensical response, how 'bout rebutting my assertions with counterfactual evidence? Ya know, those pesky things called facts.

Watch the news. It is full of facts for the discerning eye to see.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Look, JEROME DA IDIOT, instead of this nonsensical response, how 'bout rebutting my assertions with counterfactual evidence? Ya know, those pesky things called facts.


Wonderful presentation of facts.


Idiot: a person affected with extreme mental retardation


Present facts of your assertion.

:boxedin:

[Dr Adequate]

Watch the news. It is full of facts for the discerning eye to see. Because although the NWO controls the MSM, they like to put in little clues just to taunt us, yes?

Clues visible only to "discerning eyes".

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because although the NWO controls the MSM, they like to put in little clues just to taunt us, yes?

Not the NWO (doubt that their is such a thing).

The ideology dictates.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Clues visible only to "discerning eyes".

You added this after I quoted you.


Do you accept the show presented before you as reality? This is the game religion plays also.

[Dr Adequate]

Do you accept the show presented before you as reality? I'll tell you that when I've stopped beating my wife.

[Dr Adequate]

Not the NWO (doubt that their is such a thing).

The ideology dictates. But if the ideology dictates what we see on the news, then why does it also dictate that the "discerning eye" should see something different?

Why does this "ideology" keep dropping hints to "discerning" people?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'll tell you that when I've stopped beating my wife.

That does not follow.


Do you really think that the presentation of reality you receive from MSN and the like is different from the presentation of reality that religion gave before mass media?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But if the ideology dictates what we see on the news, then why does it also dictate that the "discerning eye" should see something different?



In the same manner that the discerning eye knows that Luke Skywalker is not really flying about space.

[Dr Adequate]

In the same manner that the discerning eye knows that Luke Skywalker is not really flying about space. Or in the same manner that the discerning eye knows that the moon landings were a fake?

[Dr Adequate]

That does not follow. I think you'll find that it did.

Do you really think that the presentation of reality you receive from MSN and the like is different from the presentation of reality that religion gave before mass media? "MSN and the like"?

[Dr Adequate]

In the same manner that the discerning eye knows that Luke Skywalker is not really flying about space. I notice that you didn't really answer my question. You seem to be implying that the news is a cheap cinematic fake. But you have also claimed that the "discerning eye" can find the truth by watching it.

Now, I can imagine why They, whoever They are, might want to fake the news, but I can't imagine why They would also want it to convey the real facts to "discerning" people such as yourself.

Now if you really feel that your TV is broadcasting lies that you, being discerning, can interpret as the truth, then I would tell you to see a doctor --- but I suspect that you've just gotten muddled.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But if the ideology dictates what we see on the news, then why does it also dictate that the "discerning eye" should see something different?

Why does this "ideology" keep dropping hints to "discerning" people?


You do not seem to like my answer framed in a question so I will try again.


When one gathers a plethora of knowledge on particular subjects, one can use discernment to decipher the rhetoric which is presented in the news/entertainment to frame the conversation.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Or in the same manner that the discerning eye knows that the moon landings were a fake?

To tell the truth, I think the America did go to the moon, but there was some showmanship which is why the question is still out there.

[Trakar]

Ah, but there are tremendous differences.

Hillary and Barack are similar on many Democratic platform issues, but being the President is not just about your stance on issues. And actually if you look at their positions on the issues, Hillary's imply greater depth and detail.
(...)

LOL, you have quaffed deeply from the koolaid. Hillary's pandering rhetoric is a bit more polished than Obama's but in regards to your original comments concerning divisiveness, it will be present, in abundance, with either candidate.


One of the advantages of putting this sharp woman, Hillary Clinton, in the Oval Office is that you also get Bill.

So you are saying that Bill won't offer his whole-hearted efforts and support for any Democrat who wins in November?

Obama - green and untested as he is - is going to spend quite a bit of time just trying to feel comfy as President. We can't afford a looooooong breaking-in period for this next President. We really do need to hit the ground running. Hillary can do that. And the House and Senate, I believe, will work with her more seamlessly than with Obama.

That's my opinion, anyway.

"Hit the ground running" by keeping troops in Iraq while threatening Iran, defending big business interests and basically selling out the Democratic party as fast as she can, rather like Pelosi on rightard steroids. Not that Barack would do anything different, if you are really expecting change, you won't find it among the front-runners of either party.

[Trakar]

I'm not sure I'd put Bill in the asset column. The past couple of weeks he's made a gigantic ass of himself. Not good portent.

Then consider what happened under him. No health care. NAFTA and WTO, policies that have done more harm to the middle class than all of Bush's tax idiocy. Short to non-existent coattails for the down-ticket Dems. He's a charter member of the Corporatest Club. No, all things considered, Bill's record leaves much to be desired and I can't imagine he's changed his stripes on such issues since leaving office.

Hillary was the main reason Bill was brought into the corporatist fold to begin with, she was the main big business tie-in, they never trusted him much, but took hillary's word that she could handle him.

Oh, and don't forget the telcom act of '96.

[ConspiRaider]

Don't worry, she is the next president. These things are pre-determined.

If voting mattered "they" wouldn't let you vote. :o
Nothing is pre-determined, concerning the Presidential election in the United States of America - at this moment in time. Perhaps eventually, if we really slide off the track, we'll regress to the "elections" in certain other countries - where the "candidate" gets 99% of the vote.

But everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - is still in the hands of the secret ballot-casting American voter. Various means are used to try and convince the American citizen that her or his vote is meaningless. Polls. Widely publicized accusations of voter fraud, ballot tampering. The "knowledge" that all politicians are alike anyway so who cares which one gets elected. And most dangerously: The notion that TeeVee pundits, commentators, analysts and "reporters" are much smarter than the viewer/listener on all things political, and therefore their opinions and declarations carry much more weight than the internal thought processing of the citizen. Incredibly un-American. I'm so old I remember when people vigorously discussed politics with their family members at the dinner table, their neighbors at the backyard barbecue, their friends at social functions, in the bars, in the market, after church ceremonies. Now? We still have some of that. But we have an awful lot of people in this country who are perfectly content to have an "expert" or two, instruct them as to how to think politically. Dittoheads. Why think, when you don't hafta?

[volatile]

Don't worry, she is the next president. These things are pre-determined.


If voting mattered "they" wouldn't let you vote. :o

You get kookier by the day, I swear.

[ConspiRaider]

LOL, you have quaffed deeply from the koolaid. Hillary's pandering rhetoric is a bit more polished than Obama's but in regards to your original comments concerning divisiveness, it will be present, in abundance, with either candidate.

Disagree. Project yourself a year into the future. Don't think of either of them as candidates, slugging it out in debates, giving rhetorical speeches, making sweeping statements depending upon the audience. That's what candidates do, it's what they have to do in order to establish an impression of themselves. To sell themselves. Candidates are essentially salesmen, saleswomen. Expect to hear a lot of monkey talk from any political candidate, whether it's done at rallies, conventions, debates, interviews and so forth.

Think of Obama being in the Oval Office, and think of Hillary being in the Oval Office. That candidate crap is out the West Wing window. Now they have to produce. Get a trusted group of advisors. Determine how to deal with the Big Force - both Houses of Congress. What to give on, what to take, what to compromise on, who your friends and enemies are in the House and Senate, what level of trust between Congress and the Executive from a general perspective, as well as personal. Because we have no kings or queens or emperors or shahs or sheiks or czars or dictators in this country - yet. The President MUST work effectively with Congress to produce results.

My read is that Hillary would be more effective at this eternal tug-of-war, than would Obama.

So you are saying that Bill won't offer his whole-hearted efforts and support for any Democrat who wins in November?
Be real. His wife is running. His passion for support is largely determined by that. Wouldn't yours be? If my wife (not married currently) was running for political office and I approved - and especially if we were both similar in our political ideology - I'd be kicking ass and taking names to help her out. Wouldn't you do the same? Wouldn't anyone?

"Hit the ground running" by keeping troops in Iraq while threatening Iran, defending big business interests and basically selling out the Democratic party as fast as she can, rather like Pelosi on rightard steroids. Not that Barack would do anything different, if you are really expecting change, you won't find it among the front-runners of either party.
Hillary - from her position statements, and they are online if you care to look - is going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within the first 60 days of her administration. Will push for health care reform, so all American are covered. Will push for technologies to reduce our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Wants tax cuts for the middle class (backbone of the USA). Wants improvement in schools, incentives for college attendance. A better benefits package for veterans. More. This is "selling out the Democratic party" - exactly HOW?

[Iamme]

I am glad this post has gotten some interest. I have something to study in my free time.

Study this: Bill Clinton was re-elected. See if the American people have this 'thing' for the Clintons. If they still do, then it is inevitable, irregardless of all the mudslinging that is going on, or hearing more about the crooked Clinton machine (didn't people already know that before Bill got elected the 2nd time?, but voted for him anyway?),that she will get in.

The Clintons are just magnetic. That's all there is too it. And they are both pleasing to look at?

[Trakar]

Orginally Posted by TShaitanaku
LOL, you have quaffed deeply from the koolaid. Hillary's pandering rhetoric is a bit more polished than Obama's but in regards to your original comments concerning divisiveness, it will be present, in abundance, with either candidate.
Disagree. Project yourself a year into the future. Don't think of either of them as candidates, slugging it out in debates, giving rhetorical speeches, making sweeping statements depending upon the audience. That's what candidates do, it's what they have to do in order to establish an impression of themselves. To sell themselves. Candidates are essentially salesmen, saleswomen. Expect to hear a lot of monkey talk from any political candidate, whether it's done at rallies, conventions, debates, interviews and so forth.

Think of Obama being in the Oval Office, and think of Hillary being in the Oval Office. That candidate crap is out the West Wing window. Now they have to produce. Get a trusted group of advisors. Determine how to deal with the Big Force - both Houses of Congress. What to give on, what to take, what to compromise on, who your friends and enemies are in the House and Senate, what level of trust between Congress and the Executive from a general perspective, as well as personal. Because we have no kings or queens or emperors or shahs or sheiks or czars or dictators in this country - yet. The President MUST work effectively with Congress to produce results.

My read is that Hillary would be more effective at this eternal tug-of-war, than would Obama.

I see absolutely no reason to think that Hillary would be more effective at this, both her and Barack are right of center and thus both will be able to pull some middle of the road Republicans to their side, but both will face strong opposition from most of the Democratic base and the far right Republicans in congress.

TS Quote:
So you are saying that Bill won't offer his whole-hearted efforts and support for any Democrat who wins in November?
Be real. His wife is running. His passion for support is largely determined by that. Wouldn't yours be? If my wife (not married currently) was running for political office and I approved - and especially if we were both similar in our political ideology - I'd be kicking ass and taking names to help her out. Wouldn't you do the same? Wouldn't anyone?

Which does not at all address my question. Are you saying that if Barack wins in November, that Bill will not be available for him to use as a diplomat at large? You do realize that under any other of the candidates Bill could actually serve in a cabinet position, but this is illegal in a Hillary White House, don't you?

TS Quote:
"Hit the ground running" by keeping troops in Iraq while threatening Iran, defending big business interests and basically selling out the Democratic party as fast as she can, rather like Pelosi on rightard steroids. Not that Barack would do anything different, if you are really expecting change, you won't find it among the front-runners of either party. Hillary - from her position statements, and they are online if you care to look - is going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within the first 60 days of her administration. Will push for health care reform, so all American are covered. Will push for technologies to reduce our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Wants tax cuts for the middle class (backbone of the USA). Wants improvement in schools, incentives for college attendance. A better benefits package for veterans. More. This is "selling out the Democratic party" - exactly HOW?

I'm not going by position statements which can promise anything, I'm going by her record. Bush has said that troops will start coming out before his term is up, this doesn't mean we will be out of iraq or that it will be a significant draw down, yet alone exit-from-Iraq. "push for healthcare reform," didn't she do this back in '93? and her "push" includes the Insurance companies, that isn't reform, that's big business welfare. I like the sound of green tech, but how are these positions any different from any of the other candidates? Tax cuts for the middle class, sound nice, but I'd prefer to just end the high-income tax breaks and corporate welfare. "wants improvements in schools," who among the democratic candidates are arguing against improvements in the schools? "better benefits package for veterans" again, who among the democratic candidates is arguing against improved Veteran benefits? She is selling out the party in the same manner Pelosi is by not pushing for investigations of the current administration's crimes and fitting punishments and penalties where crimes are uncovered. Not pushing for the restoration of individual rights and freedoms, not pushing for a repeal of the "Patriot act" etc., etc.,.

[Bill Thompson]

I don't mean to be rude and ignore the posts that have been made in response to my "Communism" post. It is just that there are many reasons I need to complete writing.


Let me just say this. It doesn't freaking matter if members of her own party think Hillary Clinton is or is not a Communist. There are enough right-wingers who think she because of some remarks she has made and how extreme her planned overhaul of the Health Care industry tried to be. And this is of concern to her own party because they simply want to nominate someone who will actually win the election and be the next president. It are the moderates and the swing voters who call the shots.


Anyway, I will get to studying your responses as soon as I can. Until then, here is number fourteen:



(#14) A Lack of Substance or Authenticity


On more than one occasion, Mrs. Clinton has said something that leaves us guessing what she meant or thought was behind her words. When questioned about it, we find out that, according to what she or her aids tell us, absolutely nothing was behind what she said.


We only question her when we are concerned. We are concerned only when the conclusions we can draw point to something nefarious. So either she and her aids are lying trying to cover up some horrible truth, or – perhaps even worse – there really isn't any substance or authenticity behind what she is saying.


Then she comes back with something really troublesome. Mrs. Clinton is upset because, as she says, she is being “psychoanalyzed”. Well, she should understand that it is only because she is applying for a job that is somewhat important. That job is only being the Commander And Chief of the planet's largest military force. Some psychoanalysis is required.


It seemed to have all started with Mrs. Clinton's first venture onto the campaign trail in Iowa when she was asked during a breakfast town-hall meeting in Davenport by an audience member to explain – with all the bad and evil men in the world – what equips her, as a woman, to deal with them. Hillary answered the question and added when referring to “evil men” that “people like Osama bin Laden comes to mind And what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men....” Clinton decided to answer the question in a form of a joke by stressing the words “background” and “evil and bad men” and then making a gesture and comic pause at the end to see if the crowd got the joke.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDo4pGlosLo


So who is she talking about who are just as evil as Osama bin Laden? Kenn Starr? Her husband?


Immediately after making this remark, she was asked four separate times by the press coups who she was referring to. Her answer changed. First she implied that was serious when she made the comment (she is serious that her adversaries or other people she has had to work with are as evil as Osama bin Laden). But after other questions she said that she was trying to “lighten up” and that she was under pressure to do so.


So she admittedly is trying to change to be something she someone she is not in order to gain popularity.


According to Hillary Clinton, someone somewhere at some point in time convinced her that she needed to “lighten up” -- to be more casual and to show a sense of humor in order to be more likable. Well, as the case is whenever someone puts on an act, it has come across as being unauthentic and lacking in substance. Since it is not genuine – since the humor and levity is not coming from the heart – it comes across as contrived and on more than one occasion, people are left wondering what Hillary meant and what is behind her strange behavior.


It seems to have all begun with the “Evil Men” comment Hillary made. It was supposed to be funny. OK, so it was a joke. Fine. But what was she talking about? There had to be some context to it. There had to be an evil man or evil men that she was referring to. When I heard it, I thought, like most people I am sure, that Hillary was talking about her husband. But according to Hillary aides, she was talking about Republicans. That seems a little harsh. Republicans are evil men – as evil as Osama bin Laden?


When asked to explain it, Hillary became flustered and said that everyone had been telling her that she needed to lighten up and that she did not expect to be psychoanalyzed.


We are not trying to psychoanalyze you, Hillary. We are only trying to understand what you mean. Every possible answer is a bad one. (#1) If you are talking about your husband, that is not a good answer. (#2) If you are talking about Republicans and people who disagree with you, that, in fact, is even worse. It shows that you a bad leader and cannot bring people together. (#3) if you were just talking without really thinking and there is no substance to what you say, that is very bad too.


To me, this event is disturbing for other reasons. 9-11, the war on terror, the survival of modern western society and all this involves, are not to be the subject matter of jokes or humor for someone who is running for president of The United States. For her to choose to laugh this off is an indication to me that she is unqualified to deal with these things and she has resulted to corny humor as a distraction and cover.


What is Hillary Clinton's mind set regarding the 9-11 attacks and the possibility of another attack? Is it just a big joke to her? This might be possible. Her odd, comic expressions during Bush's State of The Union Addresses when he brings up this subject is hard to fathom: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YjVdL1ZSiOE


But it is not just one instance I am talking about here. Hillary has adopted – as part of her “lighten up” campaign -- to simply laugh when confronted with an awkward situation or a question that she does not have an answer too.


It also provides an excellent cover and distraction when something horrible has come up that she does not want people to notice. This was done pretty well during the Iowa Democratic Presidential Debate when a reporter brought up an interesting fact. The question was directed to Obama – so it wasn't very respectable that Hillary rudely butted in – about how he could promise a new direction when a lot of the people who are working for and supporting Obama were once Clinton aids ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w ). But the interesting issue is not the reporter's question. This is an important point is the simple fact that a lot of important persons who once supported Hillary now support Obama. How did Hillary handle this interesting point? She decided to laugh. Suddenly the attention was on how and why this was a humorous moment. I think it more or less worked. People were distracted and wondered why Hillary found this to be funny.


This has not gone unnoticed by the media. People have begun posting montages of Hillary laughing when confronted by a question she does not have a good answer to or when she is put into an awkward situation.


It has gotten out of hand. Hillary is so coached and rehearsed and prepared to give staged, canned answers that any and all questions that are out of her game plan is dealt with by her looking at the reporters and doing this phoney laugh. I guess she is supposed to be projecting confidence or something? Or she is trying to convince us that she is so intelligent that our silly petty questions are below her and are not deserving of her supreme wisdom and time.


I do not see how we can seriously expect to support such a person as a leader.


She comes off as someone who is not applying for this job because she is in it for the people. By exhibiting this behavior she portrays herself as someone who is only in this game for herself and no one else. Exactly what is so funny about terrorism, 9-11, or the fact that former Clinton supporters and aids are not supporting and aiding Obama?


Here is another example. Hillary was asked by TMZ what advice she would give Britney Spears. Sure, it is not a good question to ask someone running for president. But, still, how can you explain her laughing so hysterically at the question. It wasn't funny. It was not funny at all. What exactly is funny about some woman loosing custody of her kids?


http://www.tmz.com/2008/01/18/hillary-to-britney-you-make-me-lmao/


Compare Senator Clinton's reaction to Governor Huckabee's reaction when TMZ asked him the same question:


http://www.tmz.com/2008/01/21/huckabee-to-britney-just-keep-livin/

[Dr Adequate]

Let me just say this. It doesn't freaking matter if members of her own party think Hillary Clinton is or is not a Communist. There are enough right-wingers ... The mad we have always with us.

But the whackos who think Hillary Clinton's a Communist also think that Obama is a secret Muslim plotting to betray us to al Qaeda, and are the same people who think Bill Clinton had his enemies whacked and buried under the White House lawn.

No Democrat is going to try to get their votes. Apart from anything else, there is no way to pander to these people short of becoming as mad as they are, which would necessitate, in the first place, becoming a Republican (and in Obama's case, changing his name and getting a skin graft).

In any electoral campaign, the residuum of looney 'wingers is a given. Somehow, Democrats still manage to get elected.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The mad we have always with us.

But the whackos who think Hillary Clinton's a Communist also think that Obama is a secret Muslim plotting to betray us to al Qaeda, and are the same people who think Bill Clinton had his enemies whacked and buried under the White House lawn.

No Democrat is going to try to get their votes. Apart from anything else, there is no way to pander to these people short of becoming as mad as they are, which would necessitate, in the first place, becoming a Republican (and in Obama's case, changing his name and getting a skin graft).

In any electoral campaign, the residuum of looney 'wingers is a given. Somehow, Democrats still manage to get elected.


You wrote the above as if the opposing side does not also. :covereyes

[Dr Adequate]

You wrote the above as if the opposing side does not also. :covereyes I wrote it as though the subject under discussion was the belief that Hillary Clinton is a Communist, which is indeed a delusion specific to one side and not the other.

[skeptifem]

(#14) A Lack of Substance or Authenticity



omg WANK. just when i thought it couldnt get any lamer.....

i am so underwhelmed by all the anti hillary nonsense. communism?? wtf?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I wrote it as though the subject under discussion was the belief that Hillary Clinton is a Communist, which is indeed a delusion specific to one side and not the other.

That was not the impression being displayed that I read.

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

[maxpower1227]

Wait, are some people here claiming that Madame "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" is not a liberal or progressive? What the hell is she then? And, for future reference, what do people here consider to be perfectly centrist political views?

[maxpower1227]

Hillary, of course, should NOT lose, given the realities of the Six Left Standing at this point in time. In a rational sense. But how can American voters be judged rational, as a whole? When SlobberSlurryStupidFace was "elected" in 2000, and then we did it again in 2004? We can never underestimate the potential stupidity and ignorance of the American voter. Not all. But way way way too many.

Of the six: Hillary, Edwards, Obama, McCain, Romney and Huckabee - Hillary is simply the best candidate. Edwards would be okay if he makes it in. Obama - if somehow he gets into the Oval Office (doubtful), is going to have an exceedingly divisive 4 years in office, similar to Carter. Watch what the GOPers in the House and Senate do to obstruct him. It'll be Stalemate City over there in The Swamp. And of course the 3 Republican candidates are all crazy-bat-loon-idiots.

LOOOOOOOL

So the deranged frothing-at-the-mouth lefty who can't even speak of Bush without resorting to 2nd grade-level insults thinks that Obama would be more divisive than Hillary? What a surprise....

How many Republicans and Independents are supporting Obama vs Hillary? I find it hard to believe that she has remotely the amount of crossover appeal as Obama.

Here are some results from a CNN poll that I stole from another forum:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...dex.html#IADEM)

WOMEN:
Obama - 35%
Clinton - 30%

MEN
Obama - 35%
Clinton - 23%

VOTE BY PARTY ID

(Since this is an entrance poll, the “Republicans” and “Independents” were registered as such when they went into the caucus, but had to register Democrat to subsequently participate. You’re allowed to change back as you’re leaving)

Democrats
Obama – 32%
Clinton – 31%

Republicans
Obama – 44%
Clinton – 10%

Independents
Obama – 41%
Clinton – 17%

VOTE BY INCOME

More than 100k
Obama – 41%
Clinton – 19%

50k-75k
Obama – 35%
Clinton – 26%

30k-50k
Obama – 33%
Clinton – 32%

15k-30k
Obama - 32%
Clinton - 32%

Under 15k
Obama – 37%
Clinton – 30%

VOTE BY IDEOLOGY

Very Liberal
Obama – 40%
Clinton – 24%

Somewhat Liberal
Obama – 36%
Clinton – 25%

Moderate
Obama – 33%
Clinton – 31%

Conservative
Obama – 21%
Clinton – 22%

VOTE BY AGE

17 - 29
Obama – 57%
Clinton – 11%

30 – 44
Obama – 42%
Clinton – 23%

45 – 64
Obama – 27%
Clinton – 28%

65 and Older
Obama – 18%
Clinton – 45%

How exactly is Obama more divisive than Ms "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"?

Oh, and while I'm at it:

Which people? Goose-stepping reich-wing FuXsnooz-bots?

This is exactly the kind of rational, non-divisive, insightful material I would expect from the backer of such a quality candidate :rolleyes:

[Bill Thompson]

(#15) Math is not on her side
Hillary Clinton is a unifier. She is a unifier of people of people close to her who oppose her. This is not a good quality because she is in a 3 way race for the Democratic nomination and no one has more then 50%. This
simply means that she is destined to loose because the two other parts of the 3 way race will join forces and bring her down.

We can already see this coming together. We already see that Obama is not a fan of hers, but also Edwards too has been expressing disagreement
with her and her statements. In a speech I saw, Edwards was critical of Hillary's comment that it took LBJ to bring about civil rights justice instead of Martin Luther King.

Simple Mathematics is Hillary's enemy. Eventually, in a 3 way political race that is virtually a tie, where there can only be one winner, the candidate that fails to win the favor of the one who drops out, will loose. Sooner or later either Edwards or Obama will drop out. Sooner or later either Edwards or Obama will voice their support for whichever of the two remain in the race. This will cause damage to Hillary's campaign.

[Lurker]

Personally, I don't think Clinton is destined to "loose", as you say Bill.

Let's assume it will be Edwards that drops out of the race. Your math reason is rather silly in that it assumes that Edwards will support Obama and that Edwards' supporters will move to Obama for the most part. I think that is fallacious reasoning as many times supporters drift elsewhere than their original choice's endorsement.

Statisitcally, Edwards is getting a lot of the white vote as is Clinton. It would be logical to presume that a good portion of those white voters might move to Clinton instead of Obama (for whatever reason). Or, I could be wrong. But it is far too difficult to discern than your gross simplification of 2 versus 1.

[Trakar]

This is exactly the kind of rational, non-divisive, insightful material I would expect from the backer of such a quality candidate :rolleyes:

Exactly which candidate do you believe I am backing? At this point, I could tell you which candidates I am not backing much more clearly than I could state any candidate that I am supporting.

[Trakar]

Personally, I don't think Clinton is destined to "loose", as you say Bill.

Let's assume it will be Edwards that drops out of the race. Your math reason is rather silly in that it assumes that Edwards will support Obama and that Edwards' supporters will move to Obama for the most part. I think that is fallacious reasoning as many times supporters drift elsewhere than their original choice's endorsement.

Statisitcally, Edwards is getting a lot of the white vote as is Clinton. It would be logical to presume that a good portion of those white voters might move to Clinton instead of Obama (for whatever reason). Or, I could be wrong. But it is far too difficult to discern than your gross simplification of 2 versus 1.

Additionally, many of both the Edwards and Obama voters that I have spoken to, are most likely to either drop out of the election process altogether or vote for a third party candidate if their chosen candidate does not become the Democratic candidate (ironically this is also mirrored among many of the die-hard Giuliani supporters and Huckabee evangalistas). Hillary supporters seem to be mostly Democratic party loyalists who will support whoever is the Democratic candidate (and this is largely reflected among the Romney supporters on the Republican side). But these are simply my own personal anecdotal experiences, I'm not sure how widely they reflect the national population.

[Bill Thompson]

Hillary Clinton's Communist/Marxist values in a nut shell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxJHdQKSUM
This is pretty much an admission in her own words.

[maxpower1227]

Hillary Clinton's Communist/Marxist values in a nut shell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxJHdQKSUM
This is pretty much an admission in her own words.

Is there like a subaudible hidden audio track embedded in that video or something?

[maxpower1227]

EDIT: ninja-clicking

[Bill Thompson]

Personally, I don't think Clinton is destined to "loose", as you say Bill.

Let's assume it will be Edwards that drops out of the race. Your math reason is rather silly in that it assumes that Edwards will support Obama and that Edwards' supporters will move to Obama for the most part. I think that is fallacious reasoning as many times supporters drift elsewhere than their original choice's endorsement.

Statisitcally, Edwards is getting a lot of the white vote as is Clinton. It would be logical to presume that a good portion of those white voters might move to Clinton instead of Obama (for whatever reason). Or, I could be wrong. But it is far too difficult to discern than your gross simplification of 2 versus 1.

Maybe. But, at the same time, white folks want to put racisim behind them just as much as black folks do. That is why so many people voted for Obama in Iowa. They also respect that Obama is not making this a race issue in his campaign -- Hillary, oddly enough, is. Also, you are overlooking something here. There has to be a vice president on the ticket. I think that Edwards supporters (assuming that it is he who drops out) would also thow their support to Obama if Obama would be smart enough to choose Edwards as his vice president.

[Bill Thompson]

Is there like a subaudible hidden audio track embedded in that video or something?

I don't know if you are familiar with the ideology of Marx. But taking care of those less fortunate is what it is all about.

[maxpower1227]

Maybe. But, at the same time, white folks want to put racisim behind them just as much as black folks do. That is why so many people voted for Obama in Iowa. They also respect that Obama is not making this a race issue in his campaign -- Hillary, oddly enough, is. Also, you are overlooking something here. There has to be a vice president on the ticket. I think that Edwards supporters (assuming that it is he who drops out) would also thow their support to Obama if Obama would be smart enough to choose Edwards as his vice president.

I think Obama would be smart to choose a less divisive running mate. I'd like to see him choose Bill Richardson, who could also help with the Southern vote, and provide some foreign policy cred.

I don't know if you are familiar with the ideology of Marx. But taking care of those less fortunate is what it is all about.

You have to be joking. "Taking care of those less fortunate" in any capacity is Marxism?

[Bill Thompson]

I think Obama would be smart to choose a less divisive running mate. I'd like to see him choose Bill Richardson, who could also help with the Southern vote, and provide some foreign policy cred.



You have to be joking. "Taking care of those less fortunate" in any capacity is Marxism?

Not everyone who wants to take care of the less fortunate is Marxist. But everyone who is Marxist is interested in taking care of the less fortunate. These are the sorts of buzz words he used. Taking from the fortunate according to their talents to give to the less fortunate according to their needs is a big part of Marxism. You should read my earlier post.

Perception is important. People already suspicious of Hillary being too hard left will view this ad of hers as an admission of having socialist values akin to Marxism or Communism.

[Dr Adequate]

Not everyone who wants to take care of the less fortunate is Marxist. But everyone who is Marxist is interested in taking care of the less fortunate. These are the sorts of buzz words he used. Taking from the fortunate according to their talents to give to the less fortunate according to their needs is a big part of Marxism. You should read my earlier post. Fish in a barrel. Let's quote George W. Bush again.

"The spirit here - the spirit of community, the desire to help people who are less fortunate is prevalent. OMG TEH MARXIST BUZZWORDS!!! eleventy.

Perception is important. People already suspicious of Hillary being too hard left will view this ad of hers as an admission of having socialist values akin to Marxism or Communism. Once again, you are talking about mad people. Of course the whackos who think Hillary is "too hard left" will view her ad as an "admission" of "having socialist values".

This is because they are nuts in the head. And no Democratic candidate is trying to appeal to these people. None of them, not one, is trying to appeal to the crazy paranoid 'winger demographic.

And yet I note that Democrats do win elections now and then, and I note also, once more, that we are talking about primary elections, where Hillary is appealing for the votes of Democrats, rather than the nutjob 'wingers who are insane enough to pretend that she is "too hard left" and has "socialist values". None of whom, I believe, are registered Democrats.

[Bill Thompson]

(#16) She Plays The Fem Card.


I have been in situations were I have had to report to a female at work. I have seen their gender to be of no consequence. I have also been interviewed by people and I have conducted interviews for employment. I am sure many people who are reading this blog have been in similar situations.

Now, imagine for a moment if the person you interviewed listed their gender as an asset to consider when considering them for the job. Imagine how impressed our dissatisfied or even disgusted you would be if they said they should get the job simply because it would make history in your hiring them. What if they said that, for some reason, their gender uniquely qualified them to do the job better than any other candidates.

Suppose you were one of several persons who interviewed this candidate and during your interview with this person, this man said “you should considering hiring me because a man has not occupied this job and you will help make history if you hire me” or if the candidate was a woman, how would you feel if she said, “I will be the first woman in this occupation. Imagine. You will make history if you hire me”. I am not talking about them saying this on the side or as you walked them out the door. I am saying that they are intending this to be a major selling point for you to consider hiring them.

Now, suppose they said this and you were to later gather for a group meeting to discuss this persons qualification. Would you bring up their comment? If they could do the job, why would they have mentioned their gender as an asset? If they were confident about doing the job, why would they have to resort to making their gender an issue.

Suppose you are a woman and this person was also a woman, wouldn't it give you pause? I mean, wouldn't it actually be a set-back to feminism to consider this person if a better qualified woman, sometime down the road, applied for the job and did not have to use her gender as an issue?

Playing the gender card is just as underhanded and shows a lack of character as playing the race card. Would you hire someone just because they were white? Would you hire someone just because they were black? A man? A woman? Should it be a factor at all? Isn't it insulting that they would think that you would consider it an important issue?

There have been female Admirals. They did not get their job just because they were female. If the military was considering who to promote to the rank of general and one candidate told the deciding body "if you pick me, you will make history because I am a woman", this would be a strike against her character. We should hold the rank of Commander In Chief in at least this high a standard.

[Bill Thompson]

Fish in a barrel. Let's quote George W. Bush again.

OMG TEH MARXIST BUZZWORDS!!! eleventy.

Once again, you are talking about mad people. Of course the whackos who think Hillary is "too hard left" will view her ad as an "admission" of "having socialist values".


You are missing the point. Even if it is a second degree truth, it is still a truth that she is a communist. And in an election decided by the people, that counts. There is no chemical experiment or blood test to decide if someone is a communist or not. Rhetoric counts. And there are too many people who think she is to write them all off as mad.

Degrees of truth are found on www.completetranslations.com somewhere.

These wackos make up the American heartland. Go spend some time with them and they might convert you.

And even if you dismiss them as wackos, it are these wackos that will swing the election and make Hillary an unwinnable candidate. And the non-wackos -- people like you -- understand this and will not nominate her.

[volatile]

Communism. You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

[Dr Adequate]

You are missing the point. You have a point now?

Even if it is a second degree truth, it is still a truth that she is a communist. No, that would be a crazy insane delusion of mad people.

And in an election decided by the people, that counts. Fortunately, most of "the people" are not nuts in the head.

There is no chemical experiment or blood test to decide if someone is a communist or not. One can, however, apply the test of seeing what policies she advocates.

The word "duh" springs to mind.

And there are too many people who think she is to write them all off as mad. Actually, I find I can write them all off as mad quite easily despite their numbers. It's the insane delusions that gave me the first hint.

These wackos make up the American heartland. I prefer to think of this as a libel upon your great and free republic. But perhaps you have actual data? Just a thought.

Go spend some time with them and they might convert you. Are they licensed to perform lobotomies? Otherwise, I don't rate their chances.

And even if you dismiss them as wackos, it are these wackos that will swing the election and make Hillary an unwinnable candidate. And the non-wackos -- people like you -- understand this and will not nominate her. You can read minds and predict the future! Well done!

[The Painter]

Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

Hillary Clinton;
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004

[UserGoogol]

Taking stuff away from people for the common good isn't communism. It's the whole idea of government. The government taxes people and spends the money on, at the very least, protecting people's rights and whatnot. The common good.

Hell, the phrase "common good" (and similar terms like "general welfare," "common welfare," "general good") appears in the Federalist Papers (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/feder16.txt) and other writings of the founding fathers and Enlightenment thinkers fairly often. Marx was just radical in his sense of what "taking things away from people for the common good" entailed.

[Lurker]

I don't know if you are familiar with the ideology of Marx. But taking care of those less fortunate is what it is all about.

We better ban all churches. Damn Marxists!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hell, the phrase "common good" (and similar terms like "general welfare," "common welfare," "general good") appears in the Federalist Papers (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/feder16.txt) and other writings of the founding fathers and Enlightenment thinkers fairly often. Marx was just radical in his sense of what "taking things away from people for the common good" entailed.


When the words "common", and "general" are used they do not denote specific. Please explain how the use of these words can possibly mean taking from a specific and giving to another specific.

[The Painter]

We better ban all churches. Damn Marxists!


Boob, churches are voluntary, governments are not. See the difference???

[volatile]

Boob, churches are voluntary, governments are not. See the difference???

Why is living in as anti-social a way as possible so appealing to you? Society functions because we share. Did you not learn that in Kindergarten?

That is not communism. It's common decency.

[The Painter]

Oh, taxes are sharing. Is that it??? What are you sharing with me???

[volatile]

Oh, taxes are sharing. Is that it??? What are you sharing with me???

Well, if you lived in the UK, the following are completely or partially funded by the taxpayer. I'm sure to a greater or lesser degree, the same is true of the US:

Police
Army
Immigration Services
Health care - from Ambulances, to GPs, to hospitals, to dentists, to care homes.
Water
Railways
Social Security
Defence
Road Building
Garbage Collection / Recycling
Childcare
Education (from pre-school to postgrad)
Scientific and other research
Civic Amenities (Parks, and the like, plus swimming pools, flower beds, firework displays...)
Care for the Elderly
Pensions
Flood Defences
Fire Services
Coastguard
The BBC - TV, Radio, Websites etc. that is the envy of the world


That's off the top of my head. That's what we, as a society, share. It's what the word "society" means.

Go live in a cave on your own if it makes you feel better. Just don't pretend that it's "better" in a world where its each for themselves and screw the next guy, or use any publicly funded highways to get there.

[The Painter]

Well, if you lived in the UK, the following are completely or partially funded by the taxpayer. I'm sure to a greater or lesser degree, the same is true of the US:

Police
Army
Immigration Services
Health care - from Ambulances, to GPs, to hospitals, to dentists, to care homes.
Water
Railways
Social Security
Defence
Road Building
Garbage Collection / Recycling
Childcare
Education (from pre-school to postgrad)
Scientific and other research
Civic Amenities (Parks, and the like, plus swimming pools, flower beds, firework displays...)
Care for the Elderly
Pensions
Flood Defences
Fire Services
Coastguard
The BBC - TV, Radio, Websites etc. that is the envy of the world


That's off the top of my head. That's what we, as a society, share. It's what the word "society" means.

Go live in a cave on your own if it makes you feel better. Just don't pretend that it's "better" in a world where its each for themselves and screw the next guy, or use any publicly funded highways to get there.


Oh, you live in the UK. I thought this was about USA elections. You don't count, do you. See if there is a thread about UK elections you might, I said might, be relevant.

[volatile]

Oh, you live in the UK. I thought this was about USA elections. You don't count, do you. See if there is a thread about UK elections you might, I said might, be relevant.

All those things, to a greater or lesser degree, are paid for by taxes in the US, too. Societies share their wealth; that's what a society is. Taxes are sharing. What else are they?

How is funding these through taxation stealing, or "communist", or, if you'd like to start at the bottom, even a negative thing?

[Bill Thompson]

Hillary is like a wolf in sheep's clothing. She may not be a member of the American Communist party, but this is only because she lacks the honesty and integrity to do so. Just because you have some reservations about attaching a cold-war term to her does not make it less true. Saying that Hillary is not Communist is like saying Senator Larry Craig is not gay. If Larry Craig is not gay, then we we have to come up with a different terminology for a man who wants to have sex with other men.


People do not read. People do not put 2 and 2 together. People do not read the books that politicians write. Friends of mine who had once escaped from Cuba tell me that noone knew that Castro was a communist when they elected him to power. That is strange because all one had to do was to read the books he wrote when in jail. Few people have read what Hillary has written. “It Takes A Village”!? Give me a break! I cannot think of a more glaring radiant example of Socialist and Communist propaganda.

[Lurker]

Boob, churches are voluntary, governments are not. See the difference???

Look at what I responded to.

I don't know if you are familiar with the ideology of Marx. But taking care of those less fortunate is what it is all about.
I replied with a quip demonstrating that his broad brush statement could be used to say that churches were Marxist.

I see nothing in his comment that limits it to govt.

Sorry for the confusion, Painter.

[Lurker]

Hillary is like a wolf in sheep's clothing. She may not be a member of the American Communist party, but this is only because she lacks the honesty and integrity to do so.

People do not read. People do not put 2 and 2 together. People do not read the books that politicians write. Friends of mine who had once escaped from Cuba tell me that noone knew that Castro was a communist when they elected him to power. That is strange because all one had to do was to read the books he wrote when in jail. Few people have read what Hillary has written. “It Takes A Village”!? Give me a break! I cannot think of a more glaring radiant example of Socialist and Communist propaganda.

I am going out on a limb here, Bill, but I am thinking you are on of the many who have not read "It Takes A Village", are you? Cover to Cover and not just excerpts.

[Dr Adequate]

Hillary is like a wolf in sheep's clothing. She may not be a member of the American Communist party, but this is only because she lacks the honesty and integrity to do so. Just because you have some reservations about attaching a cold-war term to her does not make it less true. Well, thank you for the mad gibberish.

Now, translating from insanity into English. You wish to fantasise that Clinton is a Communist. Unfortunately, this is a huge honking stinking lie that makes you look like a retarded paranoid idiot.

The reason why it makes you look like a stinking stupid drooling halfwitted liar is, of course, that Clinton has never in any way advocated any Communist doctrine. You see why you look like an idiot? It's 'cos you are an idiot.

So, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, you make up a lie so huge and stupid that only you and your fellow-halfwits could believe it. You need Clinton to be a Communist. Unfortunately for you, this is a stupid laughable lie. So you escape reality by pretending that she is secretly a Communist, and prop this up with the futher stupid lie that despite being (in your insane fantasies) a Communist, she is also, and I quote, lacking "the honesty and integrity" to say so.

This is the final resort of hysterical reality-deniers, and it works for you guys every time. You can fantasise that the people who disagree with you are Communists, and you can indulge in that stupid fantasy even though they never advocate any Communist doctrines, and (this is the sly, slimy, disgusting part of your halfwitted cunning) you can also fantasise that they are really Communists, but that because of their lack of "honesty and integrity", none of them will ever advocate any Communist doctrines. Which protects your fantasy that they are Communists, while giving you an extra reason to hate them.

Has it ever occurred to you that your stupid daydreams about your opponents are, how can I phrase this, stupid daydreams?

No, I guess not.

[Lurker]

Dr A.

Good analysis. I would add that I think Bill needs to think in black and white. He needs to see his opposition as evil so he classifies Clinton as communist. Next he will talk about how Obama is a secret Muslim. It wouldn't surprise me if he next brings up the Clinton Death List at some point.

It is kind of interesting to observe people who are so far out there that they have no idea that they are not in right or left field and are not even in the ballpark anymore. My bet is Bill thinks he is completely mainstream in his thinking (or that he has secret knowledge that the media is suppressing about Clinton). Clueless.

[Bill Thompson]

Well, thank you for the mad gibberish.

Now, translating from insanity into English. You wish to fantasise that Clinton is a Communist. Unfortunately, this is a huge honking stinking lie that makes you look like a retarded paranoid idiot.


I do not see how you can expect me or anyone else here to regard you as a rational and critical thinking after that comment. Do you expect me to approach your point of view with any respect? Do you think intelligent people use comments like "retarded paranoid idiot"? What kind of civil discussion is this? I am not retarded and I am not an idiot. My IQ has been tested to be in the genius level. You, on the other hand, resort to childish insults to try to counter what is probably a threat to you loosing face. The fact remains, you have neither read nor thought about my point of view. It seems it is you who are the one who is paranoid.

I think that you are afraid to read or consider my point of view because you are too childish to consider you might be wrong or I might have a point.

[Darth Rotor]

I saw on the television that Hillary is 9 points ahead in polls for super tuesday. Does this mean I have been wrong all along? How important is super tuesday, anyway?

To most Americans, not as important as Super Bowl Sunday.

To a candidate in a presidential election, rather important, given that about twenty states have delegates up for grabs in the primaries on

Super Tuesday.

Delegates is what gets you the nom from your party, ya see. :cool:

DR

[Bill Thompson]

Well, thank you for the mad gibberish.

Now, translating from insanity into English. You wish to fantasise that Clinton is a Communist. Unfortunately, this is a huge honking stinking lie that makes you look like a retarded paranoid idiot.

The reason why it makes you look like a stinking stupid drooling halfwitted liar is, of course, that Clinton has never in any way advocated any Communist doctrine. You see why you look like an idiot? It's 'cos you are an idiot.

So, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, you make up a lie so huge and stupid that only you and your fellow-halfwits could believe it. You need Clinton to be a Communist. Unfortunately for you, this is a stupid laughable lie. So you escape reality by pretending that she is secretly a Communist, and prop this up with the futher stupid lie that despite being (in your insane fantasies) a Communist, she is also, and I quote, lacking "the honesty and integrity" to say so.

This is the final resort of hysterical reality-deniers, and it works for you guys every time. You can fantasise that the people who disagree with you are Communists, and you can indulge in that stupid fantasy even though they never advocate any Communist doctrines, and (this is the sly, slimy, disgusting part of your halfwitted cunning) you can also fantasise that they are really Communists, but that because of their lack of "honesty and integrity", none of them will ever advocate any Communist doctrines. Which protects your fantasy that they are Communists, while giving you an extra reason to hate them.

Has it ever occurred to you that your stupid daydreams about your opponents are, how can I phrase this, stupid daydreams?

No, I guess not.


Basically, what her television commercials say that are supposed to support her, sound exactly what a commercial that would support a communist candidate would say.

This childish name-calling of yours is an attempt to distract from some views that people have about her. It won't work and does not indicate that your view has any value because it indicates you are an emotional and unstable person.

[Bill Thompson]

To most Americans, not as important as Super Bowl Sunday.

To a candidate in a presidential election, rather important, given that about twenty states have delegates up for grabs in the primaries on

Super Tuesday.

Delegates is what gets you the nom from your party, ya see. :cool:

DR

Is it true what they say that she is 9 points ahead? People have shown me polls that say Obama was the favorite up until now.

[Darth Rotor]

Is it true what they say that she is 9 points ahead? People have shown me polls that say Obama was the favorite up until now.

No comment until Super Tuesday is over. IIRC, she had more delegates as of Monday afternoon, from the previous primaries.

DR

[Bill Thompson]

This is the final resort of hysterical reality-deniers, and it works for you guys every time. You can fantasise that the people who disagree with you are Communists, and you can indulge in that stupid fantasy even though they never advocate any Communist doctrines, and (this is the sly, slimy, disgusting part of your halfwitted cunning) you can also fantasise that they are really Communists, but that because of their lack of "honesty and integrity", none of them will ever advocate any Communist doctrines. Which protects your fantasy that they are Communists, while giving you an extra reason to hate them.

Has it ever occurred to you that your stupid daydreams about your opponents are, how can I phrase this, stupid daydreams?

No, I guess not.
I did not start thinking she had communist intentions until I started listening to her.

[Lurker]

My IQ has been tested to be in the genius level. You, on the other hand, resort to childish insults to try to counter what is probably a threat to you loosing face.

I am sure Dr. A is quailing in fear of your staggering intellect. :)

Bill, you say that you did not start thinking of Hillary as a communist until you started listening to her. Did you get the Hillary quotes yourself or were they handily provided for you by talk radio or some right wing book?

[ConspiRaider]

I did not start thinking she had communist intentions until I started listening to her.
I'm hip. And watching her too. Didja see her on the National Town Hall Meeting last night? Voices Across America?

During the broadcast, between questions, she was forcing one half of the studio audience (East Billary) to construct a wall for preventing access to West Billary. Damn her! Then she posted Hillary Henchmen in the guard towers with orders to cry on sight, of any attempted breach! As everyone obviously knows, all the rest rooms were in West Billary. Obama had to have his people do an air drop of Porta-Potties into East Billary, remember? Wasn't that wild? Isn't he fantastic?

Mrs. Clintorbachev: Tear Down This Wall!

[Darth Rotor]

I'm hip. And watching her too. Didja see her on the National Town Hall Meeting last night? Voices Across America?

During the broadcast, between questions, she was forcing one half of the studio audience (East Billary) to construct a wall for preventing access to West Billary.
Diaphragm (http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/diaphram.htm), not wall.

:duck:

(The funny is strong with you today, Conspi. Glad to see you in a good mood. :) )

DR

[Dr Adequate]

I do not see how you can expect me or anyone else here to regard you as a rational and critical thinking after that comment. There are lots of things that you don't see. Your incomprehension is not a significant datum.

Do you expect me to approach your point of view with any respect? No. After all, I'm right.

Do you think intelligent people use comments like "retarded paranoid idiot"? I can think of at least one.

What kind of civil discussion is this? I am not retarded and I am not an idiot. My IQ has been tested to be in the genius level. You, on the other hand, resort to childish insults to try to counter what is probably a threat to you loosing face. The fact remains, you have neither read nor thought about my point of view. It seems it is you who are the one who is paranoid. Your fantasies about me also do not constitute data.

The tu quoque was a bit lame, don't you think? The word "paranoid" is not merely an insult, it also has a meaning.

I think that you are afraid to read or consider my point of view because you are too childish to consider you might be wrong or I might have a point. This is a common fantasy amongst crackpots. Creationists, Truthers, people who want to warn me that the FBI is reading my thoughts ... they all discover that I'm "afraid" to agree with everything they say. I find this is a good way to spot loons.

If I did agree with everyone who has attributed my failure to agree with him to cowardice, I should be stark, staring mad.

[Dr Adequate]

Basically, what her television commercials say that are supposed to support her, sound exactly what a commercial that would support a communist candidate would say. No ... they ... don't.

Mr Reality is on the line and would like to speak with you.

This childish name-calling of yours is an attempt to distract from some views that people have about her. It won't work and does not indicate that your view has any value because it indicates you are an emotional and unstable person. What you call my "childish name-calling" is in fact a sincere attempt to drag you back from the brink of madness. The charge of possessing emotions I shall attempt neither to palliate nor deny.

[Bill Thompson]

You know, this, what you are saying, does not make any sense. Someone can be retarded and think Hillary is NOT a communist. Being retarded or not being retarded does not have anything to do with someone being correct or incorrect about some given subject.

I have worked with retarded people. I was once an extra on the Johnny Knoxville movie, The Ringer. I have to say that they were much nicer and, frankly, a lot more level-headed than you are.

I have mentioned some solid reasons why people think that Hillary is communist at heart and people have also repeated and agreed with them here. So why not attack the message instead of the messenger for once.

I don't think retarded people post things in a web forum very often. I think doing so would be a challenge for them. So I do not know why you think I am retarded.

Is this how you talk to people you disagree with?

My treating you in kind would be an insult to retarded people. They are better people than you are.

[ConspiRaider]

Diaphragm (http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/diaphram.htm), not wall.

:duck:

(The funny is strong with you today, Conspi. Glad to see you in a good mood. :) )

DR
Good mood is actually my natural state. :) And I don't even drink. Go figure. Still, I do love making model ships. And the airplane glue makes a convenient and preserving glaze when the boat's finished. I use one of those foot-operated glue pumps so's I can hand-shape the glaze as it dries, do you do that? Every tiny detail covered. What can I say? I'm a confectionist.

[Bill Thompson]

And another thing is this. What is inherently wrong with a communist? It is just a different ideology that most Americans would adhere to. You would think I was accusing Hillary of being a vampire or something by the way some persons have reacted here.

I have liberal Democrats in my family who openly admit that their party has borrowed concepts from socialism and communism. It is not such an absurd idea that Hillary shares these ideas.

[Dr Adequate]

And another thing is this. What is inherently wrong with a communist? Well, it was the bit about communism turning out to be crap that most turned me against it.

It is just a different ideology that most Americans would adhere to. Did you just say that most Americans are communists?

You would think I was accusing Hillary of being a vampire or something by the way some persons have reacted here. Well, to be precise, you would think that you said she was a communist and that people laughed at you, which is what actually happened.

N.B: when I say that "you" would think that, obviously I don't mean that you would think that. Obviously you go to great lengths not to think that.

I have liberal Democrats in my family who openly admit that their party has borrowed concepts from socialism and communism. It is not such an absurd idea that Hillary shares these ideas. It is, in fact, absurd to say that Hillary is a communist.

[Dr Adequate]

What is inherently wrong with a communist? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v381/Panaman/Pict0154.jpg

[Bill Thompson]

Now that I know how some hot heads will jump to irrational conclusions, I will be able to rephrase some of my earlier reasons. I have a few more to write first.



(#17) Human Instinct

People may think it is for her own good. If people are fans of Hillary Clinton, they will naturally care about her well-being. And if it is in her best interest NOT to become president of the United States, they will not vote for her out of compassion for her.

Of course, what I am talking about is the possible public reaction to her near-sobbing episode after the Iowa caucuses when Hillary arrived for a breakfast meeting with supporters in New Hampshire. You may recall it happened something like this. Some older woman in the audience seemed impressed by Hillary’s stamina. She mentioned how difficult she found it was to get up early in the morning and stay up late – or something to this effect – and she asked Hillary how she was able to do it. Hillary replied with her voice nearly cracking saying that “it is hard… but this is personal”.


By the way, I would like to mention that my take on this event was not the same as most people. This act struck me as a blatant rip-off of a line that John Edwards had used on one of the debates. He had said that this was personal for him, and I noticed that when he said this, Hillary was looking on with shock and seemed very impressed with this line. I think that this line had. So I think she stole that line and I do not think she was sincere when she used it.


But that is beside the point. The point is, I think that for the same supportive reasons that people naturally backed her in her run for the white house, people will, out of compassion for her, not support her and consider her to be too weak and think it is in her best interest to vote against her and keep her from a job that – since campaigning was hard on her – will be hard on her.



(#18) The Realization of Human Instinct


The flip side of the “Human Instinct” argument is that other people will come to the realization that they had supported her in the first place because of some deep-rooted instinct to support and show respect to someone just for being a woman. When these people have the time to reflect on what caused them to support Hillary in the first place, their enthusiasm for her will fade.


Once upon a time I lived near Austin, Texas where a very unusual and noteworthy occurrence took place. About one month before I moved from this suburb to another location for a contract software engineering job in another suburb there was a tragedy that seemed to shake city to its core. A young policewoman was killed in the line of duty. As I recall, she was laid to rest with full honors and the public was moved to line the streets.
This in itself is not so unusual. What made this case unique was how she died. A criminal did not kill her and she was certainly not killed intentionally. What caused her death ignited a heated debate and shined a spot light into a realization that human instinct is sometimes not a good thing.


In a sudden rush of poor judgment brought on by simple chivalry and some deep rooted instinct men have to protect and guard woman, the policewoman’s partner threw the squad car into reverse to try to place the vehicle between her and a criminal who seemed to be running towards the back of the car. In reality the criminal was running away in the direction of the back of the car on the drivers side. In reality the policewoman was taking chase and running from the passenger’s side and across the back of the car. In a moment of human instinct taking over her partner’s actions, the policeman ran over the policewoman.


What ensued was a heated debate on talk radio about women serving in the police force in dangerous situations alongside men. This has nothing to do with equal treatment or equal rights. Human beings are simply animals. We are not as evolved as we would like to think. We support and protect women as a natural instinct.


If the policeman had the opportunity to evaluate the situation logically, he would not have attempted to use the squad car as a barrier device to protect a woman.

Likewise, people may come to realize that some of us have supported Hillary Clinton out of some sort of natural instinct. Over time, this instinct will wear out once we have the time to reevaluate our actions.

[Bill Thompson]

I am sure Dr. A is quailing in fear of your staggering intellect. :)

Bill, you say that you did not start thinking of Hillary as a communist until you started listening to her. Did you get the Hillary quotes yourself or were they handily provided for you by talk radio or some right wing book?
Well, first of all, let me explain a few things. I have had friends who have lived in communist countries. In fact, I have known people who had lived in Belarus when it was a part of the Soviet Union. Basically they say that the only difference they saw between their live then and their live now in the United States is that they pay more taxes. That seems in tune with the philosophy of bigger government that Hillary Clinton has faith in. No, I am not brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. I read Hillary's speech from an unbiased news source where she talked as if the money that the public has is essentially the government's money that they can take at will. And the television ad where Hillary has always looked after people who are less fortunate is straight from her.

I think people here have given me some insight as to what people think of communism. I never said that Hillary was as evil or as sociopath as Stalin. I think that people on this forum have some sort of twisted hang-up about communism as if it is some sort of cartoonish satanic nephariousnous. It is just an ideology. I think it is clear what Hillary's beliefs are and her ideas for the role government plays.

The subject of this discussion thread is reasons why people will or might turn against Hillary. People have these beliefs. In you mind you might think that these are few people but from what I have seen this is not so.

[Dr Adequate]

Well, first of all, let me explain a few things. I have had friends who have lived in communist countries. In fact, I have known people who had lived in Belarus when it was a part of the Soviet Union. Basically they say that the only difference they saw between their live then and their live now in the United States is that they pay more taxes. That seems in tune with the philosophy of bigger government that Hillary Clinton has faith in. And yet this is not a terribly good argument that Clinton is a Communist, since I note that she hasn't been running the country for the past few years.

Is W a Communist? Do tell.

I think people here have given me some insight as to what people think of communism. I never said that Hillary was as evil or as sociopath as Stalin. You did, however, say that she was a Communist. Hence the ridicule.

The subject of this discussion thread is reasons why people will or might turn against Hillary. People have these beliefs. In you mind you might think that these are few people but from what I have seen this is not so. Isn't this where we came in?

Yes, these nuts may exist. They may exist in large numbers. But most of them are probably not registered Democrats. They will not prevent her from getting the nomination.

[Lurker]

If your buddies from Belarus think the only difference between the Soviet Union and America is the taxes, they are as dumb as rocks or they were just pulling your leg.

As Dr. A said, who has been running the coutry the last 8 years? Or if you want a larger picture, who has run the country 20 of the last 28 years? Republicans. Odd how they never noticed that there was no difference between America and Russia. It seems Republicans have put in place a communist govt here in America.

Dude, come back from the edge.

[Bill Thompson]

(#19) Content of Character

I am a firm believer in the timeless philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King who believed that people are to be judged by the content of their character. If we are to be a respectable society, we will not judge Hillary Clinton because of or in spite of her gender. We should judge her by the content of her character.

I remember how shocked people were following the release of the Oval Office audio recordings after the Watergate scandal. One thing that was surprising was how much swearing and profanity went on in the nation’s higher office. Using colorful language is not really a big deal if someone is simply playing a character or reciting a story or quoting someone else. But the words we choose to use are a reflection of our thoughts and how we view our world. When the tape recordings were being transcribed, it is common knowledge that Nixon was panic-stricken and did all he could to black out profanity.

The Hillary Clinton people know in public is not the same person that her aids, her friends, and her family know in private. She swears like a prison inmate. She is rude and crude. The fact that she displays this false persona in public is even more troubling and shows the content of her character.

One may argue that this means only that she is passionate about certain things. But she directs her tirades towards people close to her and to people she is supposed to negotiate with. Aids who attended to the couple’s residential section of The White House, when her husband was president, would leak stories that the two would have Jerry Springer style fights on a regular basis. She throws the F-bomb around on a regular basis. She addresses people in the most degrading and obscene terms frequently. She is not qualified to be the president of the United States.

[delphi_ote]

These aren't reasons she won't be nominated. They're reasons someone thinks she shouldn't be nominated.

The reason she won't be nominated is obvious:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/barak_obama.jpg

[Dr Adequate]

(#19) Content of Character

I am a firm believer in the timeless philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King ... We're talking about the same guy, right?

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

---

Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'

---

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

---

The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

---

When you are right you cannot be too radical. Sounds like a bit of a Commie to me. How 'bout you?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

These aren't reasons she won't be nominated. They're reasons someone thinks she shouldn't be nominated.

The reason she won't be nominated is obvious:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/barak_obama.jpg

The Dems have Super-delegates which have pre-determined the candidate.

Everything you are watching now is a pony show.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Dems have Super-delegates which have pre-determined the candidate.

Everything you are watching now is a pony show.

... No. The super delegates go with the flow. They change who they supprt, and some stay independent. Historically, they go with whoever wins the popular vote.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

... No. The super delegates go with the flow. They change who they supprt, and some stay independent. Historically, they go with whoever wins the popular vote.

Then tell my why there are super-delegates if they matter not?


I am sorry that you want to believe Obama has a chance, but Hillary has already been appointed.

[Bill Thompson]

If your buddies from Belarus think the only difference between the Soviet Union and America is the taxes, they are as dumb as rocks or they were just pulling your leg.

As Dr. A said, who has been running the coutry the last 8 years? Or if you want a larger picture, who has run the country 20 of the last 28 years? Republicans. Odd how they never noticed that there was no difference between America and Russia. It seems Republicans have put in place a communist govt here in America.

Dude, come back from the edge.
Wow.

Well, first of all, Russia is not a communist country now.

And second of all, these friends are from Belarus and because of this there opinion and views are more reliable and take pecedence over anything else I have heard or seen from sources that have not been there.

[Bill Thompson]

And yet this is not a terribly good argument that Clinton is a Communist, since I note that she hasn't been running the country for the past few years.

Is W a Communist? Do tell.

You did, however, say that she was a Communist. Hence the ridicule.

Isn't this where we came in?

Yes, these nuts may exist. They may exist in large numbers. But most of them are probably not registered Democrats. They will not prevent her from getting the nomination.

I just saw the one and only television commercial so far that I have seen locally on television in Washington State that the Clinton camp has show here. OK if she is not a communiste, it sure is an amaizing coincidence that her talking points are exactly the same as the talking points that I saw from the communist parth in Greece when I visited my relatives there back in the 90's. Free Health Care for all is a major benefit of communisim. Hillary talks about Universal Health Care. The absence of poverity is a major talking point of the communists. Helping the poor and underprivledged is a major talking point of Hillary.

The fact that this idea seems absurd to you tells me that you have some sort of prejudice toward the word "communist".

[Bill Thompson]

(#20) Her Impeached Spouse

There is an old adage that behind every successful man stands a supportive woman. Historically, this is often applied to presidents and other political figures. In Hillary’s case, it would of course apply to Bill as the supportive spouse. Although my first reason mentioned that Bill Clinton would not serve in any official capacity in a Hillary Clinton Cabinet, the American people have traditionally looked upon The First Couple as a single unit. Just as John Kerry’s spouse was fair game in deciding how good a president he would be, the electability Hillary depends on how the American people judge Bill.

I do not know why the neocons have yet made a point about this. I suspect that they are waiting with baited breath in hopes that Hillary will win the nomination. But the simple fact is that Bill Clinton was impeached and it seems few Americans know this only because he was not voted out of office.

My liberal friends usually act like raging lunatics when I bring this up. It is they who assume that I have been somehow sequestered from reality because Bill Clinton was not forced out of office. The fact is, Bill Clinton was impeached. The impeachment proceedings are a multi-step process and once it is over, a vote is made to determine if Bill Clinton should be removed from office. This final vote is not part of the process. It is as if someone is convicted and then the punishment phase is a separate proceeding.

In fact, I distinctly remember that after Bill Clinton was impeached and before the decision was made to take him out of office or not, George Stephanapolous was on a talk show saying “… it is not an impeachable offence” and the talk show moderator had to correct him in saying “… he has already been impeached”.

[Bill Thompson]

It seems that some people here have read my mind.

(#21) The Electability of Obama

My final reason why Hillary will not win the nomination of the Democratic Party is the simple electability of Barack Obama. Statistically, it has been shown that more voters will support Obama in a race against any of the front running Republican Candidates than Hillary.

I have heard it said that “race” is some sort of issue in this election as if to imply that white Americans will not vote for a black man. To me, this is absurd.

Let me explain by giving the following example. I once lived in Saint Louis. I have never seen a more racially divided city in my life. There was clearly one part of town were most of the people were black and there was another part of town where there were very few black people. The whole city and county had a sort of high-strung tension to it. Whenever I went into a restaurant where all the people working there were black, they seemed to have distain and anger in their eyes when I first walked in. It wasn’t until I spoke to them with kindness and dignity and respect that I could see them feel more at ease. The flip side of this was certain high priced shopping malls where all of the patrons were white and the customers were always escorted to their cars after they made their purchases. My point is this. Here was a society where half of the population lived in anger while the other half lived in fear. Racism disserves everyone. White folks live in a disadvantage because of racism just as much as black folks.

The idea of putting racism behind us is appealing to most people regardless of “race”.

Of course, Obama is more appealing for many reasons. Obama is an intelligent and charismatic, of course. He seems more respectable as well. The reasons why Obama will make a better president is a subject for another discussion.

Hillary supporters will have to choose between supporting her and increasing the chances of winning the presidential race. If they see that either choice will mean Hillary will loose, they should logically pick the choice that will put a Democrat in the White House. This is another reason why Hillary will not become the Democratic Nominee.

[Bill Thompson]

We're talking about the same guy, right?

Sounds like a bit of a Commie to me. How 'bout you? I don't really care. He was a great man regardless.

But I will say this. You have some nerve calling me retarded, a moron, and paranoid since your comment shows how poorly informed and stupid you are. MLK was being bugged by the FBI because of a tip from Agent Solo that King had connections with Soviet spies and other communist leaders. Top level government hearings about these bugs by the FBI later threatened to expose Solo, in fact. I think I have wasted my time reading and responding to your posts.

[Dr Adequate]

I just saw the one and only television commercial so far that I have seen locally on television in Washington State that the Clinton camp has show here. OK if she is not a communiste, it sure is an amaizing coincidence that her talking points are exactly the same as the talking points that I saw from the communist parth in Greece when I visited my relatives there back in the 90's. Free Health Care for all is a major benefit of communisim. Hillary talks about Universal Health Care. The absence of poverity is a major talking point of the communists. Helping the poor and underprivledged is a major talking point of Hillary. I bet that she's in favor of teaching the multiplication table too, just like commies.

The fact that this idea seems absurd to you tells me that you have some sort of prejudice toward the word "communist". What strange mental processes you have. I'm intrigued. If I laughed at someone who claimed that Barack Obama is a tree, would that "tell" you that I have some sort of prejudice towards the word "tree"?

[Dr Adequate]

I don't really care. He was a great man regardless. But does he sound like a Communist?

But I will say this. You have some nerve calling me retarded, a moron, and paranoid since your comment shows how poorly informed and stupid you are. MLK was being bugged by the FBI because of a tip from Agent Solo that King had connections with Soviet spies and other communist leaders. Top level government hearings about these bugs by the FBI later threatened to expose Solo, in fact. Er ... you do not explain why you are under the delusion that these facts prove me "poorly informed and stupid". They do not, after all, contradict anything that I said in any way.

I think I have wasted my time reading and responding to your posts.You have indeed wasted your time responding to my posts, and reading them is going to be a bit of a waste of time too if you don't also understand them.

[Dr Adequate]

Wow.

Well, first of all, Russia is not a communist country now. Which is not relevant, since you wrote:

Well, first of all, let me explain a few things. I have had friends who have lived in communist countries. In fact, I have known people who had lived in Belarus when it was a part of the Soviet Union. Basically they say that the only difference they saw between their live then and their live now in the United States is that they pay more taxes. Now, I am no big fan of Bush, but if you tell me that the only basic difference between Bush's America and the former Soviet Union is that one pays higher taxes in the Land of the Free ... then I remain skeptical.

Nor do I see how it proves that Clinton is a Communist more conclusively than it proves that Bush is a Communist, a point that you have still not explained.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now, I am no big fan of Bush, but if you tell me that the only basic difference between Bush's America and the former Soviet Union is that one pays higher taxes in the Land of the Free ... then I remain skeptical.

Which part are you skeptical about, that Americans pay higher taxes today than Russian payed under the USSR or that America is moving rapidly towards a form of communism?

[SDC]

Comparing tax rates in North America and western Europe, pre-USSR collapse, with taxes in the USSR, is senseless and impossible. North America and western Europe used something called "money." Typically in the form of what is called "hard currency," which could sensibly be tracked and traded.

The Soviet bloc used something else. The Soviet example was the "rubl'", and the Polish the "zloty" (etc.). This money was not "hard currency," and no one would take it or bother to trade in it.

Comparing it to the dollar (any national version), the UK pound, the franc, etc., is like comparing apples with road apples. (Does that latter expression translate outside the US? Hint: it's a euphemism for horse droppings.)

[Trakar]

Then tell my why there are super-delegates if they matter not?


I am sorry that you want to believe Obama has a chance, but Hillary has already been appointed.

BTW, Republicans use super delegates also, they just use fewer of them, currently.

[delphi_ote]

I am sorry that you want to believe Obama has a chance, but Hillary has already been appointed.
Sorry. I didn't know we were supposed to bring our tinfoil hats to this thread. I'll try to be more prepared next time.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sorry. I didn't know we were supposed to bring our tinfoil hats to this thread. I'll try to be more prepared next time.

Are you still unaware of the structure despite having the information presented before you?

:covereyes

[JEROME DA GNOME]

BTW, Republicans use super delegates also, they just use fewer of them, currently.

Certainly, but this thread is about Hillary and the Dems.

[Bill Thompson]

Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise." (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 - Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

"You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!" (From the book "Inside" by Joseph Califano, p. 213 - Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.)

F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you ****-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut." (From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."

"You f**king idiot." (From the book "Crossfire" p. 84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!" (From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p. 89 - Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I s ay, Okay!!!?" (From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

< Think about this folks - should Hillary Clinton be in charge of the US Military - how about the nuclear codes? Does she sound like a people person? Why are 40% of the public conned into supporting this wiccan marxist? >

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!"(From the book "The Survivor," by John Harris, p. 382 - Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

"Where's the miserable c*ck sucker?" (From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

"No matter what you think about the Iraq war, there is one thing we can all agree on for the next days - we have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote." (Was posted on Hillary Clinton's senate.gov web site on 1/28/05)

"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!" (From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 - Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

A right-wing network was after his presidency…including perverting the Constitution." (To Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)

"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!" (From the book "The Survivor" by John Harris, p. 99 - Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the White House)

"I mean, you've got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum." (C-Span, 1/19/1997 - Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)

"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!" (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" (From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

"You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight your friends." (From the book "The Agenda" by Bob Woodward, ch. 14)

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 119 - During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 68 - Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 - Hillary in 1996)
If you don't mind, I am going to borrow this.

[Bill Thompson]

I bet that she's in favor of teaching the multiplication table too, just like commies.

What strange mental processes you have. I'm intrigued. If I laughed at someone who claimed that Barack Obama is a tree, would that "tell" you that I have some sort of prejudice towards the word "tree"?

I do not understand and I have asked already, what is your deal with communism and what do you think about it? Do you think it is good? Do you think it is bad? I do not understand what objections you have with what I have said. Exactly where are you coming from here?

I asked this once before and you brushed me off with a cartoon. If you think it is bad, how do you think it is bad? If you think it is good, how do you think it is good?

[Bill Thompson]

But does he sound like a Communist?

Er ... you do not explain why you are under the delusion that these facts prove me "poorly informed and stupid". They do not, after all, contradict anything that I said in any way.

You have indeed wasted your time responding to my posts, and reading them is going to be a bit of a waste of time too if you don't also understand them.

Which is not relevant, since you wrote:

Now, I am no big fan of Bush, but if you tell me that the only basic difference between Bush's America and the former Soviet Union is that one pays higher taxes in the Land of the Free ... then I remain skeptical.

Nor do I see how it proves that Clinton is a Communist more conclusively than it proves that Bush is a Communist, a point that you have still not explained.

My friends once lived in Belarus when it was part of the Soviet Union.

Bush is not part of this discussion thread. And since he cannot be reelected I do not see any point in talking about him.

Do you have any real point to make?

[Bill Thompson]

Why in the world do you think this would rule out her representing the Democrats? Isn't that sort of considered a basic qualification?

:D

Exactly. I don't understand why I am getting hammered for mentioning this by one single person here.

But some Dems fear she is too hard left while her husband was more electable since he was more a centralist and moderate and thus, more electable. Which Hillary is not.

[Bill Thompson]

Just in case noone clicked on the link:

When Bill Clinton came to Microsoft to give a speech, he was received warmly by a crowd who were impressed by his wisdom and his view of a better, more helpful and compassionate world. People naturally are drawn to and appreciate an intelligent, well spoken person who can think on their feet. He touched on a lot of issues and he had a lot of great one-liners in dealing with world events such as “Osama bin Laden likes technology just like the west likes technology. But bin Laden likes it exclusively and the west likes it inclusively”. While the crowd was left pondering this gem, Clinton would either throw out either another line of insight, or a line of wisdom or a line of encouragement. This left the group constantly intrigued and mentally stimulated.

There was a question-and-answer period at the end of this speech and Clinton answered each with detail and precision. One woman asked if he could hold a Cabinet position in a Hillary presidency. Specifically, I believe she asked if he could be secretary of state.

The former president said “That is a good question. The answer is no.” And then he explained that a law was passed – I believe during the Lyndon Johnson administration – that said an immediate family member of the president cannot be in the cabinet. This had something do to with Bobby Kennedy being in John Kennedy's Cabinet and a president cannot or should not have to fire a family member. President Clinton went on to say that he thought that this was actually a very good idea.

This makes me wonder because Hillary was in charge of revamping the Heath Care system during Bill Clinton's presidency. But on the other hand, this really was not a position of power.

(#1) A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not Mirror the Years of the Bill Clinton Presidency
This leads me to the first reason why Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic Nominee for President.

I always suspected that the only reason why many people liked Hillary Clinton was because of the run-off charisma from her husband. When I first noticed her surfacing as a candidate for president, I was at a loss as to why so many people liked her and they seemed to like her very much. I went to several liberal and progressive web forums. They seemed to be upset by just asking the question as if you were questioning some divine prophecy. Trying to get into the heads and understanding how liberals think is often difficult. Ann Coulter might be wrong about a lot of things, but one thing I think she gets right is that Liberalism is like a church. You cannot question the divine doctrine or those who are appointed the Pope of the Church of Liberalism – doing so will get you banished from the Progressive web forums.

Regardless, without any other reason for supposing why people liked Hillary, I was left with only the name recognition and the face recognition and their subconscious appreciation of happier times. When all possible reasons are discounted, the only reason left, no matter how improbable, is the only possible.



My suspicious were confirmed by several people who would openly admit “I miss Bill” when talking about having a president Hillary.

Well, it is time for me to officially burst this bubble. As Bill Clinton said himself, he cannot be placed into any real position of power in a Hillary Presidency.




So now ask yourself this. If you could erase Bill Clinton from the picture – if you could remove the association between Bill and Hillary, would you still be excited about Hillary Clinton being president?

You might tell yourself that since Hillary seemed to be a powerful player when Bill was president, it might work the other way. I would not. The two have very different personalities and ideologies and interpersonal skills and management styles. Bill is a charismatic intellectual while Hillary is a driven, ambitions power-hungry leftist ideologue. Switch the seats of power and you have a very different administration and, as a result, a more troubling future for our country.

Being the wife of Bill Clinton should not be a reason why you would want to support Hillary. A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not be any way like the Bill Clinton Presidency.

(#2) How Hillary Handled the Paula Jones Issue
Is Hillary a good decision maker? If you think she is, I have to say you have been duped by the well-rehearsed and well-funded Clinton media machine. People who have been close to her – such as her Whitewater associates and people close to the Stan Lee campaign scandal -- will tell you that they are left in awe by how she is willing to back-stabs her supporters; and how she is unwilling to negotiate, or compromise on policy; and how she seems to be devoid of any ethical or moral standard in dealing with people. A perfect example of this last personality trait is seen in how she handled the Paula Jones case.

In case you do not know or do not remember, this is the case in a nut shell. In May 1991 Paula Jones was a state employee in Arkansas and was asked to have a face-to-face meeting in a hotel with then-governor Bill Clinton. Shall I continue or do you want to skip to the next paragraph? Basically it seemed that Bill Clinton and Paula Jones had different ideas of what was supposed to take place in this face-to-face meeting. That became clear when Governor Clinton showed his erect penis and Paula Jones made a dash for the door.

Eventually Clinton and Jones found themselves in a sexual harassment suit. By the time Bill Clinton had become president, Jones' lawyers were looking for more evidence since the original event did not have many witnesses and it was becoming a case of he-said-she-said.

But that changed when rumors began to surface that Clinton was involved in some inappropriate behavior with some White House interns.


Jones’ lawyers convinced the judge in the case that specifics of this behavior would go far to show Bill Clinton's pattern of behavior and provide credibility to the Paula Jones' side of the story. The Judge in the Paula Jones case agreed that Jones' lawyers could interview White House interns.

When Hillary heard of this, she decided to fight this. That is right. Hillary, not Bill, swung into action. Details of what happened are described in the book “The Truth About Hillary”. Hillary summoned her talented and her high-cost lawyers to the White House for advice.

The advice she got, I admit, was very sound. Her advice is simply this: “It is important that we make this go away as quickly and as ethically as possible. We need to see if Jones will drop the case in exchange for a cash settlement and some sort of watered-down admission from the President.”

Hillary should have taken that advice.

To Hillary Clinton, telling the truth has never been the course of action to take. So she decided to fight but she decided to fight the investigation in a way that I do not think anyone can say makes any sense. She went on national morning television and said that the Paula Jones case, the investigation into inappropriate behavior of The President with White House interns were all a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Clearly, as outlined in “The Truth About Hillary” and supported by many witnesses, Hillary must have known about Monica Lewinski and affairs with other White House interns. But somehow, in Hillary's mind, she had delivered a severe blow to some dark, imaginary evil force. After giving this infamous “vast right-wing conspiracy” rambling rant on NBC's “Today's Show” the program cut to commercial and she has been reported to have said “that will teach them to f**k with us”.

All this leads to a noteworthy outcome. The result of Hillary ignoring the intelligent and good advice of her lawyers and the result of choosing to be combative was the proceeding Impeachment proceedings of the president. The Monica Lewinski affair became public knowledge and a public and international humiliation for the United States. All this would have been avoided if Hillary made the right decision. All this would not have happened if not for Hillary.




Is Hillary a good decision maker? If you think she is, I have to say you have been duped by the well-rehearsed and well-funded Clinton media machine that avoids these facts.

http://www.gelsana.com/Clinton_html_57b754c.jpg
European postage stamp ridiculing an affair brought to light thanks to the mismanagement of Hillary Clinton.

(#3) The Barbara Olsen Angle
History turns on a dime. We do not know sometimes until years later how the death of a public figure radically altered the course of history.


Let me give you one example. We now know that the assignation of JFK altered history in a way that we previously would not have imagined. When President John F. Kennedy was alive, he continually proposed a joint US/USSR mission to the moon to Soviet President, Nikita Khrushchev. This fact came to light only a few years ago when the BBC interviewed Khrushchev son for the science program, “The Planets”.

By the time Kennedy had gone to Dallas, The Soviet President had softened his hard, competitive stance. He was willing to give in and propose a joint, dual mission to the moon. But Kennedy was assassinated and history changed. Lyndon Johnson was nervous and suspicious of the Soviets and he never considered a joint space mission to the moon.

The Apollo Missions and the space race were major events during The Cold War. These missions served as a source of international propaganda in showing the world which system of government was better and which country was ahead technologically. Clearly, if there had been a joint US/USSR mission to the moon, history would have taken a different course. But Lee Harvey Oswald changed all that (conspiracy theories not withstanding).

It is hard to imagine what the world would be like history had taken a different path. I have also often wondered what the world would be like if Martin Luther King had not been assassinated. He was a more intelligent and capable man that people today give him credit for. He was a published author and a gifted orator; he inspired people of all races and backgrounds; he won the Nobel Peace Prize. I have suggested to friends that MLK might have become president of the United States. People often cannot imagine this because, to put it simply, we are living in a different time-line. Our universe has been altered by an assassin. The peace and harmony that could have existed in the United States has been taken from us.

History turns on a dime. Such is also the case with the murder of Barbara Olsen. Barbara Olsen was the heart of the movement to expose Hillary Clinton for who she really is. When Hillary spoke about the “vast right-wing conspiracy” there is no doubt that she had Barbara Olsen in mind

Barbara Olsen had written the book “Hell To Pay” about the real Hillary Clinton -- the Hillary Clinton that all Americans should know about.

Barbara Olsen had served as the chief investigative counsel for the House Government Reform and Oversight committee. She and her staff had investigated the FBI and Travel Office scandals. Olsen knew the details of Hillary Rodham Clinton's role in several of the Clinton administration's unseemly political maneuvers. It is important to note that the findings of Barbara Olsen and her co-workers were like that of the investigators working for independent Counsel Kenneth Star and that is that in the White House scandal after another, all roads led to Hillary. This must be why the FBI scandal, the Travelgate scandal and White Water were left out of Stars impeachment report. You can impeach the president but you cannot impeach The First Lady (but luckily, if we are wise, we can keep her from becoming president).

Olsen describes how cold and well-rehearsed Hillary was when she was asked questions. Olsen and hear staff never before had seen someone so unflappable when presented with damning evidence and adept at presenting a new interpretation no matter how improbable Hillary's story was.

I am not going to quote extensively from Olsen's book. I suggest everyone go out and get this book and read it. It is brimming and oozing with condemnation and insight into the real Hillary Clinton in a very logical and fair manner.

People today do not have the time or energy to get up and go read a book. And if it is from a writer who is no longer living, her celebrity status has faded since we cannot see her on Oprah or any other talk show.

But Olsen was already hitting the talk show circuit and gaining respect and converts. She had started being a commentator on several news programs and was on her way to do more when she was flying on flight 77 that hit the pentagon on 9-11-2001. Olsen was opening people's eyes. Even among people who disliked and distrusted George W. Bush were adding Hillary Clinton to their list of politicians to distrust and avoid.

Barbara Olsen was scheduled to be a panel member on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect” that aired after 9-11-2001. Out of respect for her, the broadcasts the program with her seat empty.

The Barbara Olsen angle is this. If she had lived, it would be definitely less likely that Hillary Clinton would have as much of a likely shot at acquiring the nomination for the Democratic Party to become president. We have in our power to honor Olsen through the power of the internet and keep history from taking a wrong turn as it has in the past. The Internet and Internet blogs have already shown their power in changing history for the better. If we choose to do so, we can do it again.




One of the goals of Osama bin Laden has been to change The United States politically. When Bush was running against Kerry, Osama bin Laden released a video tape threatening terror against the states that supported George W. Bush instead of John F. Kerry. Bin Laden's view was that it would be better for Al Qaeda to have Kerry as president instead Bush. Of course, the American people were not impressed with the Al Qaeda threat.

Maybe bin Laden does not know that 9-11 killed off an important critic of his preferred political party in the United States, or maybe he does and he has learned his lesson and has decided to keep quiet this time around. But by ignoring Olsen's words and putting her out of our minds because she is out of sight can easily be interpreted by Al Qaeda as a victory and a validation of the mission their “Magnificent 19” had given their life for.

You may argue that it might be in our best interest and the interest of peace to give them that sense of accomplishment. But this has been tried in the past and has had the effect of encouraging and emboldening them. When Bill Clinton pulled out of Mogadishu, Osama bin Laden interpreted this as a sign of weakness and that the United States was “a paper tiger” that could easily be knocked down. If the death of Barbara Olsen leads to the election of a president whose ideology includes less funding for the military, this will give validation and encouragement to Al Qaeda.

(#4) Hillary's Abuse of the Jamie Leigh Jones Case
How someone can be so soulless as to abuse a raped woman for political purpose is beyond my understanding. Hillary Clinton's political ambitions have no moral or ethical boundaries. She bets on the fact that The American people will not see through her false concern and pretend compassion. Often it seems she wins this bet.


Hillary Clinton ignored all the rape and abuse charges brought against people close to her but when a rape case surfaces that has the appearance of being connected to Halliburton and has the appearance of being connected to Iraq, she does not hesitate in coming forward and demanding that an immediate investigation be conducted.


(#5) The Hillary Campaign Fraud
Democrat leaders conspired with the Clintons to obtain millions in campaign contributions and hid it from the Feds. Stan Lee (who, in case you do not know, is the creator of Spiderman) wanted to have Bill Clinton's genius when he left office to create a new entertainment company. In order to do this Stan Lee and Peter Paul contributed or help with fund raisers for the Clintons and the DNC. The details of this and how the money was hidden are all over the Internet and I will not repeat it here. The Clintons also managed to sell the newly created company against Stan Lee's wishes to a Japanese company.


(#6) Hillary's Hand in Presidential Pardons
Many presidents pardon people upon leaving office. The practice is supposed to be a reflection of good will by the Executive Branch of the Government among other noble reasons. When Bill Clinton left office, many people found it suspicious that he seemed to pardon more than other presidents and people wondered why he choose who he did. Like other shady dealings in The White House during the Clinton Administration, Hillary's hand can be seen here as well. It has been reported often on the Internet that key players and persons who could aid in Hillary's campaign for senator were pardoned.


(#7) The FBI Files Found on Hillary's Desk
How did FBI files about Republican Party officials end up on Hillary Clinton's desk? How can you believe her side of the story that she has nothing to do with it? This is an example of what Barbara Olsen called “highly improbable” explanations that she would give. The Left are willing to believe that Hillary is not guilty of dirty tricks. I think they should ask themselves if they are truly thinking logically or if they are like drug addicts who believe their poison does not really hurt them because they desperately want to believe.


(#8) Whitewater
Although Hillary has been cleared of any wrong-doing, there is still a sense in some Americans that where there is smoke, there is fire. Here is how some Americans might still feel about Whitewater.

All the research and investigation that took millions of dollars and years have already been done. But it was done at a time when Bill Clinton was president, not Hillary. Kenneth Star and his staff have already reported to Barbara Olsen that all the corruption of Whitewater lead to Hillary and not Bill. We already know that The Independent Counsel Report omitted any mention of Whitewater. It would be inappropriate to mention Whitewater when it is still uncertain if Hillary will become elected. But I am not a government official. I am only saying the obvious. We have forgotten that we were expecting the highly anticipated Independent Console Report to contain details of Whitewater as well as Other scandals. But many of the scandals were omitted. They were not omitted because of lack of evidence. They were omitted because they implicated Hillary Clinton. Since we cannot impeach a first lady. The details of the investigation were not included in the report.


(#9) The Iraq War
Hillary Clinton wants to be president. She wants to be president so badly that she will say anything she thinks will help make her become president. There really isn't anything behind what she says except the drive to become president. No rational and committed opinion is there apart from her hard left ideology. She bets on the fact that the American Public will have a short term memory and are unable to piece together that her shifts in opinion match the shifts in public opinion on many issues, including the Iraq war. Unfortunately and to our loss, it seems her bet pays off.

For months, Hillary was giving speeches regarding the Iraq war which answered the desires of her Democratic Party. This was until the President asked Senator Clinton into the oval office for a face to face conversation. President Bush basically told her that if one day she became President, she might regret her “immediate pull-out rhetoric and that the situation in Iraq had no quick and easy fixes”.

Since then, Hillary had noticeably softened her rhetoric to the dismay of her supporters and to the criticism of her Democratic Party opponents.
But still, at that time, if you went to Hillary's official web site you would still see that my some sort of magic, Hillary Clinton was the candidate to choose if you wanted to end the war in Iraq.
http://www.gelsana.com/Clinton%202_html_47b52b85.gif
Hillary Clinton's web site listed "To end the war in Iraq" as the number one reason why she should be president.


Then the unexpected happened. The Bush troop surge proved that the hawks and the Neocons were actually right. They were right all along that the best way to get out of Iraq was not a gradual troop reduction followed buy a pull out, but the ol' right wing “peace through superior fire power” would end the war sooner and bring peace and stability to the region sooner.

November, 2007 was the quietest and safest month for Americans in Iraq in the last 4 years.

What's more is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, US Military Deaths had reached near peacetime levels (link: http://tinyurl.com/e4a6b (http://tinyurl.com/e4a6b)) (pdf file: http://tinyurl.com/yv53q8 (http://tinyurl.com/yv53q8) ).

Additionally, the hype that the Democratic Party and The United States liberal biased press had given that the war was expensive and a burden to the nation turned out to be just that – hype. Compared to other wars as a percentage of the GNP, the war in Iraq has been the second cheapest in US history. Jerry Bowyer of NRO compares the cost of the Iraq war to date with this handy chart of the costs of America's previous wars as a percent of GDP.
http://www.gelsana.com/Clinton%202_html_m56b469e2.jpg
Clearly, Hillary Clinton put ending the Iraq War at number one on her list solely because she thinks this is what is most important in the minds of the American people, not because she could logically argue that it should be number one on the list. This is not like Vietnam.

But even if we choose to ignore the statistics I have put here, and if we suppose that for some reason it should be number one on our list, does Hillary Clinton have a clear and logical and comprehensive plan for us getting out of Iraq? Surely, if this is number one on her list of issues, one would think that she would have had this well thought and well planned.

Well, it turns out she does not. Here is a video of her saying in a sense that she has a plan to ask for a plan. Her plan is to plan a plan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hwuOA_pfAM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hwuOA_pfAM)

An indecisive and unsure and (what appears to our enemy as) a weak president during wartime will be a bad idea.

This is another reason why Hillary Clinton will not win the Democratic Party's Nomination for President.
(#10) Healthcare Reform and Bad Leadership
Will Hillary Clinton make a good leader? Does Hillary have the sort of personality that will bring people together and make people bend to her wishes? Does Hillary have the interpersonal skills outlined in several time-tested novels such as “How to Win Friends and Influence People”? According to the fiasco of Health Care Reform she participated in during her husband's time in the White House, the answer is definitely “no”.

Her coldness and unwillingness to bend or compromise or win people to her side are the stuff of legend.

To top it off, when Bill Clinton suggested publicly that the plan might require some negotiation and compromise in order to see it come to reality, his wife called him on the phone and the next day Bill Clinton made a public retraction.

We do not need someone like this running the Executive Branch of our government. We should not have someone like this in the Oval Office.
This is another reason why Hillary will not become the Democratic Nominee for President.

(#11) She Does not Know the National Anthem
This seems unbelievable but I have proof.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfZ_gXCHaMw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfZ_gXCHaMw)


In case you don't know, it is not “Oh say does our star spangled banner yet wave” it is “Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave”. It might be a minor point to some. But is it not to me. There may be some characteristics people are looking for in a president and there may be some characteristics that are not important to people who are running for president. Not knowing our national anthem just might be a minor point, but it is something I think should disqualify anyone from running for president. If there was a test of qualifications or even a series of test, knowing the National Anthem should be the first question on the first test in the first elimination round.

This cannot be anything but a clear indication that Hillary Clinton does not want to be president out of love for her country. It can only be an indication that she wants to be president to satisfy her lust for power.


(c) 2008 William M. Thompson

[delphi_ote]

Are you still unaware of the structure despite having the information presented before you?
All I have is a lunatic conspiracy about super delegates (who mostly have yet to make a public decision) "appointing" a candidate. Do you have evidence your theory is true, or are you just making things up again?

[Dr Adequate]

My friends once lived in Belarus when it was part of the Soviet Union.

Bush is not part of this discussion thread. And since he cannot be reelected I do not see any point in talking about him.

Do you have any real point to make? Yes, certainly. I should like to once again make the point that if your friends tell you that there is no difference between living in Bush's America and the Communist USSR, except that under Bush they pay more taxes, that is no reason to identify Clinton as a Communist.

I think that everyone else reading this thread except you understoood that the first time.

[Dr Adequate]

I do not understand and I have asked already, what is your deal with communism and what do you think about it? Do you think it is good? Do you think it is bad? I do not understand what objections you have with what I have said. Exactly where are you coming from here?

I asked this once before and you brushed me off with a cartoon. If you think it is bad, how do you think it is bad? If you think it is good, how do you think it is good? This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me think that you are a liar, or retarded, or insane.

You asked me, five days ago, on this very thread: "What is inherently wrong with a communist?"

I replied as follows:

Well, it was the bit about communism turning out to be crap that most turned me against it.

Now, this may not be the most subtle piece of political analysis ever written, but I believe it does convey to even a frickin' five-year-old the fact that I think ill of Communism.

So why are you drooling out retarded nonsense about how you don't know whether I think Communism is good or bad?

Your claim that I "brushed you off with a cartoon" is also a stupid, stinking, festering lie, isn't it? Or a madman's delusion. Or an idiot's blunder ...

Well, I shall not speculate upon your mental state, but the fact is that before posting the cartoon, I posted my clear opinion stating that I was against Communism because it was, and I quote, "crap".

[Lurker]

Well, I shall not speculate upon your mental state, but the fact is that before posting the cartoon, I posted my clear opinion stating that I was against Communism because it was, and I quote, "crap".

Maybe Bill is a proponent of "crap" and that is the source of the miscommunication?

[Bill Thompson]

Yes, certainly. I should like to once again make the point that if your friends tell you that there is no difference between living in Bush's America and the Communist USSR, except that under Bush they pay more taxes, that is no reason to identify Clinton as a Communist.

I think that everyone else reading this thread except you understoood that the first time.

No, they said that their only difference between living in the USA and living in the Soviet Union for them personally was the fact that they noticed they paid a lot more taxes when they lived in the Soviet Union.

And this is just one of many things that is akin to socialism and communism which is paying much higher taxes.

You got it wrong.

I was wondering why I could not understand what you were getting at.

Did I write it backwards or something. Sorry if I did.

================================================== ======


To repeat what has already been posted...

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people"
(From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe"
(From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 - Hillary in 1996)

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

I have discovered that people seem to go insane when you mention the
word "communist". Supporters of Hillary have seemingly gone nuts and
have expended a lot of energy defending her when I mention this in other
web forums. So, let me make myself clear. The cold war is over, there
is no Soviet Union anymore and I am not accusing Hillary of being a Soviet
spy.

People have gone so far as to attack my admiration and support for
Martin Luther King as if to say "ah HA! You like Martin Luther King!
Did you know he said this or that which seem like communist ideals. Would
you call HIM a communist?!" This only shows how stupid and uninformed
people are. King was, in fact, being investigated by the FBI for his
association with people that Agent Solo had told the FBI were soviet spies.

The word "communist" seems to conjure cartoonish villain-like images
in people's brains. Well, grow up.

Let's just look at the facts:

A big controlling government is a communist idea. Hillary wants this.
Free Universal Health Care is a communist idea. Hillary wants this.
Providing for the poor at the expense of the rich is a communist idea. Hillary wants this.
One world government is a communist idea. Hillary wants this.

[Bill Thompson]

Yes, certainly. I should like to once again make the point that if your friends tell you that there is no difference between living in Bush's America and the Communist USSR, except that under Bush they pay more taxes, that is no reason to identify Clinton as a Communist.

I think that everyone else reading this thread except you understoood that the first time.

No, they said that their only difference between living in the USA and living in the Soviet Union for them personally was the fact that they noticed they paid a lot more taxes when they lived in the Soviet Union.

And this is just one of many things that is akin to socialism and communism which is paying much higher taxes.

You got it wrong.

[volatile]

:dl:


Free Universal Healthcare is NOT a communist idea.
Providing for the poor at the expense of the rich is NOT a communist idea.

These are socialist ideas, but resolutely not communist. Under perfect Marxist communism, for example, there would be no poor or rich, so "at the expense of the rich" makes no sense.

A big controlling government is also not particularly unique to communism, and large democratic, socialist governments are very different from large, autocratic communist ones.

As for "one world government", can you show a) that this has anything to do with communism and that b) Hillary Clinton has advocated one?

What Dr. Adequate is delicately trying to tell you, Bill, is that you have no freakin' idea what communism actually is.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Free Universal Healthcare is NOT a communist idea.
Providing for the poor at the expense of the rich is NOT a communist idea.

These are socialist ideas, but resolutely not communist. Under perfect Marxist communism, for example, there would be no poor or rich, so "at the expense of the rich" makes no sense.

A moving towards. Have you read Marx? :boggled: It is a process.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As for "one world government", can you show that Hillary Clinton has advocated one?

Speaking for herself and others using her own words in 1999.

heegk07026I

[Bill Thompson]

Free Universal Healthcare is NOT a communist idea.
Providing for the poor at the expense of the rich is NOT a communist idea.

These are socialist ideas, but resolutely not communist. Under perfect Marxist communism, for example, there would be no poor or rich, so "at the expense of the rich" makes no sense.

A big controlling government is also not particularly unique to communism, and large democratic, socialist governments are very different from large, autocratic communist ones.

As for "one world government", can you show a) that this has anything to do with communism and that b) Hillary Clinton has advocated one?



Yeah, you are right. It is a socialist idea. People call the Soviet Union "communist" but they called themselves "socialist". To a lot of people that distinction gets lost. But, I think you are right.

Yeah, she advocated a single world government. There is actually an organization pushing for this. Google is your friend (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS259&q=one+world+government+organization+hillary+clinto n).

As for me getting some things wrong, he too got my comment that people pay more for taxes in Belarus than in the USA backwards. So, nah dee nah dee doo doo.

Don't be an ass and belittle when someone gets something wrong. And don't be too arrogant to think you are always right.

And don't diagnose someone as being a moron or retarded unless you have the credentials in neurology or psychology to back it up.

[Bill Thompson]

Laughing dog,

While we are discussing the meanings of words, I have a word for you that I suspect you do not know the meaning of. The word is "minutia". Rather than focusing on the difference between communism and socialism, how about considering that a significant portion of the American public regard these as equally avoidable concepts and ideologies whose difference is only theoretical and often a socialist is called a communist and a communist is often called a socialists.

The topic of this discussion is a list of reasons why Hillary will not be successful. Focusing on the minutia will not refute this.


:dl:


Free Universal Healthcare is NOT a communist idea.
Providing for the poor at the expense of the rich is NOT a communist idea.

These are socialist ideas, but resolutely not communist. Under perfect Marxist communism, for example, there would be no poor or rich, so "at the expense of the rich" makes no sense.

A big controlling government is also not particularly unique to communism, and large democratic, socialist governments are very different from large, autocratic communist ones.

As for "one world government", can you show a) that this has anything to do with communism and that b) Hillary Clinton has advocated one?

What Dr. Adequate is delicately trying to tell you, Bill, is that you have no freakin' idea what communism actually is.

[Bill Thompson]

Wanna bet ;) ?

I think the reasons were a tad silly.

How much?

Thanks for the suggestions. I have made some changes:

http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/billthompson/19810
http://gelsana.spaces.live.com/
http://www.gelsana.com/21.html

[Bill Thompson]

Yes, certainly. I should like to once again make the point that if your friends tell you that there is no difference between living in Bush's America and the Communist USSR, except that under Bush they pay more taxes, that is no reason to identify Clinton as a Communist.

I think that everyone else reading this thread except you understoood that the first time.

You didn't get it. Of course in Soviet Belarus they paid more taxes.

[volatile]

Focusing on the minutia will not refute this.

Bill - pointing out that you have no idea what communism actually is (either in theory or in practice) is certainly not pedantic when the entire topic under discussion is your accusation that Hilary Clinton is a communist.

You accuse her of being a communist. The things she advocates are not communist in any way. Ergo, she is not a communist, and you are wrong.

[volatile]

Yeah, you are right. It is a socialist idea. People call the Soviet Union "communist" but they called themselves "socialist". To a lot of people that distinction gets lost. But, I think you are right.


Really? You really don't think the USSR openly agreed that it was founded on Marxist-Leninist philosophies? You are a silly man.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You accuse her of being a communist. The things she advocates are not communist in any way. Ergo, she is not a communist, and you are wrong.

What policies does she advocate which are not communist in any way?

[volatile]

What policies does she advocate which are not communist in any way?

All of them? :rolleyes:

Hilary Clinton has no one shred of communism within her ideological framework, unless you equivocate or redefine the meaning of "communism" so much as to render it meaningless.

As Dr. A has already shown, the markers Bill Thompson has claimed are demonstrative of Hilary's "communism" are equally present in George Bush's rhetoric. I hope you don't want to try and argue that GWB is a communist, do you?

[Dr Adequate]

No, they said that their only difference between living in the USA and living in the Soviet Union for them personally was the fact that they noticed they paid a lot more taxes when they lived in the Soviet Union.

You got it wrong.

I was wondering why I could not understand what you were getting at.

Did I write it backwards or something. Sorry if I did. You did indeed write it backwards. What you wrote was:

Well, first of all, let me explain a few things. I have had friends who have lived in communist countries. In fact, I have known people who had lived in Belarus when it was a part of the Soviet Union. Basically they say that the only difference they saw between their live then and their live now in the United States is that they pay more taxes. I can only read your posts, not your mind.

[Bill Thompson]

So I left off one word at the end of the sentance. I meant obvously that the difference is that they pay more taxes "THERE" instead of "Here". Common sense. I meant obviously that they pay more taxes in a Soviet State. Sorry I did not spell it out for you and be 100% precise. My only mistake is in overestimating you.

I find it amusing that you call me retarded.

I assumed that no one would say or think that people in a Free Market society people would pay more taxes and in a socialist/leftist/big government somehow people would pay less taxes. My only mistake is my overestimating you, Dr. Adequate. I did not think I had to be so precise in my words because I assumed that anyone would know that you pay less taxes in a free society.

You turned out to be amusing after all.

I think you have been quick on the draw to call me a moron and retarded because your damaged ego hungers to find someone to put under your pecking order. I imagine that you get called that a lot and so I imagine it has become part of your vocabulary.

Well, I don't get called that very often. So it is a shock to me.

[Dr Adequate]

So I left off one word at the end of the sentance. I meant obvously that the difference is that they pay more taxes "THERE" instead of "Here". P-a-i-d. Past tense.

What you said was that they pay more taxes now than then.

Common sense. I meant obviously that they pay more taxes in a Soviet State. Look, if I tried to figure out what you should have written on the basis that it ought to make sense, then I'd think that you'd inadvertenly omitted the word "not" before the words "a Communist".

I assumed that no one would say or think that people in a Free Market society people would pay more taxes and in a socialist/leftist/big government somehow people would pay less taxes. Whereas I asumed that you were just coming out with more gibble-gabble. Which you were. Because whatever you meant, you said something that was nonsense. This was of a piece with the rest of your posts, which were also nonsense. Now you're complaining that it's stupid of me to point out your stupid error. How's that working out for you?

I think you have been quick on the draw to call me a moron and retarded because your damaged ego hungers to find someone to put under your pecking order. Yes, you do think that, don't you? You also think that Clinton is a Communist. You think a lot of dumb stuff.

I imagine that you get called that a lot and so I imagine it has become part of your vocabulary. Yes, you do think that, don't you? You also imagine that Clinton is a Communist. You imagine a lot of dumb stuff.

---

Given the fact that your latest post is also stupid, should I assume that you meant to write something else? If so, what?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All of them? :rolleyes:


So you do not know what her policies are or you can not find one that is not communistic?

[Kerberos]

So you do not know what her policies are or you can not find one that is not communistic?

How about the one where she doesn't want to nationalize the means of production and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[volatile]

So you do not know what her policies are or you can not find one that is not communistic?


Errr... no.

None of her policy positions is Communist. If I'm wrong, prove it.

[Lurker]

What policies does she advocate which are not communist in any way?

From her website:

Hillary will extend middle class tax relief, the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, and reform the AMT to ensure people don’t face stealth tax increases.

Does not sound communist to me in any way. Want more?

[Lurker]

Jerome:

Here is another one:

She will establish a Veterans Microloan Program to provide veterans with no-collateral, low-interest microloans of up to $100,000 for entrepreneurial ventures.

Nothing communist there.

[Lurker]

Jerome:

You know, I went to her website and am finding one item after another that is not in any way communist. Makes me wonder if you EVER do any actual homework before making wild claims.

She will provide fast-track training for new claims specialists and expand the Benefits at Discharge Program to smooth the transition from service to discharge for all those who serve our country.

[Lurker]

Jerome:

Here is another one:

She has introduced the Count Every Vote Act to avoid repeating the problems of the past and ensure the integrity of our elections. Her bill:

Provides a paper trail for every vote cast.
Designates Election Day as a national holiday.
Allows same-day registration.
Minimizes long lines at the polls.
Makes sure that impartial officials administer our elections.
Allows the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting.
Helps states invest in better voting technology.

That does not have any hint of communism in it as far as I can tell. Maybe I just don't see communism all around me like you do.

[DavidJames]

Here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/national/main3829861.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3829861)is an example of a point I've made about one of the barriers to Clinton becoming president. This belief is not that uncommon among fundamental Christians.

Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

From her website:

Hillary will extend middle class tax relief, the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, and reform the AMT to ensure people don’t face stealth tax increases.

Does not sound communist to me in any way. Want more?

Progressive income tax.


You failed on your first try. :blush:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome:

Here is another one:

She will establish a Veterans Microloan Program to provide veterans with no-collateral, low-interest microloans of up to $100,000 for entrepreneurial ventures.

Nothing communist there.

This would be State manipulation of business.

Second fail in a row.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome:

You know, I went to her website and am finding one item after another that is not in any way communist. Makes me wonder if you EVER do any actual homework before making wild claims.

She will provide fast-track training for new claims specialists and expand the Benefits at Discharge Program to smooth the transition from service to discharge for all those who serve our country.



Third time a charm? Nope.

This is the State placing citizens into desired roles.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome:

Here is another one:

She has introduced the Count Every Vote Act to avoid repeating the problems of the past and ensure the integrity of our elections.

That does not have any hint of communism in it as far as I can tell. Maybe I just don't see communism all around me like you do.


Hey, you found one!!! :)

[delphi_ote]

All I have is a lunatic conspiracy about super delegates (who mostly have yet to make a public decision) "appointing" a candidate. Do you have evidence your theory is true, or are you just making things up again?
After your deafening silence, I'll go ahead and assume the latter...

[delphi_ote]

Progressive income tax.
Income tax implies the people have an income. This precludes communism.

[Lurker]

Progressive income tax.


You failed on your first try. :blush:

Wait, you are saying that anything but a flat tax is communist? Really? Have you had botox recently cause I am amazed you can say that with a straight face. :)

[Lurker]

This would be State manipulation of business.

Second fail in a row.

Business loans to veterans is communist? I guess the GI Bill is too then, eh? :)

[Lurker]

Third time a charm? Nope.

This is the State placing citizens into desired roles.


What roles? They are making sure claims are processed quickly.

[Jekyll]

A moving towards. Have you read Marx? :boggled: It is a process.
Nope.

The proletariat was meant to get so frustrated with living under unfair conditions that they flip out and revolt.
Marx was actually critical of people who tried to limit unfairness under the existing systems, as he thought they were delaying the time of revolt.


2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

[Lurker]

Jerome:

By your imaginings, every govt in the world is communist. I am not sure if you are joking or actually beleive what you wrote but if it is the latter I guess I don't have anything more to say and will kindly bow out.

[quixotecoyote]

Was there a boat involved on the Hillary site? I understand that can cause some issues for certain posters.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wait, you are saying that anything but a flat tax is communist? Really? Have you had botox recently cause I am amazed you can say that with a straight face. :)

Yes, a plank of the communist manifesto is communistic.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nope.

The proletariat was meant to get so frustrated with living under unfair conditions that they flip out and revolt.
Marx was actually critical of people who tried to limit unfairness under the existing systems, as he thought they were delaying the time of revolt.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

A process towards by other means is still a process towards.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Business loans to veterans is communist? I guess the GI Bill is too then, eh? :)

From the government, yes.

[Lurker]

Yes, a plank of the communist manifesto is communistic.


So let me review. Every social program is communistic. Every tax that is not 100% equal is communistic.

You have a unique view on the world, Jerome. :)

ETA: If I may add something here that seems appropriate regarding your usage of "communist"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome:

By your imaginings, every govt in the world is communist. I am not sure if you are joking or actually beleive what you wrote but if it is the latter I guess I don't have anything more to say and will kindly bow out.

I am not joking.

Please examine these tenets and compare them to current American government.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

[Lurker]

Jerome:

I may kick myself later for replying but I am a bit bored right now so here goes. LEt's lok at your list and see if it applies to the US.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

No, private property is alive and well here is the US.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
I would not characterize our tax system as communist but it is progressive so this one is subjective.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Inheiritance is accepted. Tax does exist ABOVE $2M but that is a far cry from abolition.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
I don't know about rebels but emigrants can own property and has not been confiscated.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
FEderal REserve is primarily a private organization of banks.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
While there is regulation, the govt does not own the means of communication or transport.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
I am not aware of hardly any state factories other than the TVA. Nor are there any govt farms.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Nope, nobody is obligated to work. The rich can do as they please. The poor can be destitute if they so wish.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
We have seen more people move to the cities over the years. Not sure how to respond to this one.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Yep, this one is defintely seen here.



OK, it appears very few of the tenets you listed can be seen today or in Hillary's planks.

[Bill Thompson]

I find that human beings don't communicate or comprehend written text as well as if they are being told something. I think it will help if I have these points read to you.


http://www.gelsana.com/audio/first%20group.wav (http://www.gelsana.com/audio/first%20group.wav)

http://www.gelsana.com/audio/second%20group.wav (http://www.gelsana.com/audio/second%20group.wav)

http://www.gelsana.com/audio/third%20group.wav (http://www.gelsana.com/audio/third%20group.wav)

[dudalb]

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

That seems to be happening,but it being done not by some Stalin type resettlement program but by Free Market forces.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Yeah,Public Education for all and Abolishing Child Labor is a sure sign we are on all way to the Gulag.
No one despises Marxism more then I do. But Jerome is so freaking offbase here.

[Bill Thompson]

I think when people read something, it often just does not sink in. So I have made my first YouTube video. I have jotted down about 30 reasons why Hillary is not going to get the Dem Nom. So there eventually are going to be 30 YouTube posts by "athono" (me).

Here is the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSxnpSP5Ug

OK, so I am not the image I posted. But what better than to have a woman's voice read to you? The reason why I did this is because I do not have a sound studio to record myself with any quality and I also, as you can see, am not really experienced with making videos. That will come as I post more of the reasons.

[delphi_ote]

"Bill Thompson" here is identifying himself as "Debbie" the young asian woman cross posting videos in Spanish on YouTube. Creepy!

[Bill Thompson]

Check out number 5. I just updated it.

http://www.gelsana.com/Hillary/index.html

We are all shaped by how we are raised and the lessons learned as we mature. This is true for even the most diabolical human beings. Fortunately, in the modern world, children are raised in fairly structured environments that are routine, compassionate and typical. But this has not always been the case.

Consider this poignant example. The outlaws of the old west are the stuff of American folklore. But as unbelievably villainous as they may seem to most modern people, they are not myths. It is important to note that Billy The Kid and Jessie James and Butch Cassidy and the many others became who they were because of the environment they grew up in. When these people were children, they were witnessed to the bloody battles for the acquisition of free verses slave states in the lawless west prior to the American Civil War.

When Hillary was a young lawyer during the Vietnam Era, she worked for the prosecution during the preliminary motions for the Watergate Impeachment proceedings for president Richard Nixon. This experienced shaped the person she is today. During this time, her assigned job was to find out if Democratic presidents had committed similar scandals, and, if so, where these scandals went unchecked and unpunished. The motivation for this work by her Democratic bosses was clear. They wanted to see if Nixon and his attorneys could present such a case during the impeachment proceedings and argue the case that the impeachment proceedings were politically motivated and thus should be dismissed.

The result of Hillary's study was, an emphatic yes. Democratic presidents had, in fact committed and gotten away with more than just a break-in and bugging of a hotel room of the opposition.

This is not what Hillary's Democratic bosses had wanted to hear.
The next job, surprising as it may seem, was this. The next thing they asked her is to come up with a strategy to keep this information from becoming public and/or a strategy to express these other events in a positive light and/or come up with another explanation regardless of how implausible the explanation might seem.

This is how Hillary was schooled as a young attorney and goes far to explain her behavior as an adult. In her mind, powerful politicians are corrupt and the successful ones are not the ones who are not corrupt. The successful ones are the ones who hide their corruption.

In fact, a reporter once asked Hillary about her political life and how she seemed to have her hands in some ventures of questionable ethics. Her response was that she could have stayed home like a typical housewife and bake cookies instead. As twisted as this may sound, it explains her mindset perfectly. Being corrupt and finding ways to avoid prosecution was just part of the game of being a politician. The alternative, to Hillary, was not to be an honest and sincere politician. The alternative was to not be a policeman at all.

I have found that Hillary's progressive and liberal supporters acknowledge this and they have worded and described Hillary's behavior and professional career in a positive light. They use words like "cunning" and "intelligent". What is more, I have spoken with several liberal friends and they seem to have resigned themselves into thinking that Hillary had to do what she did in order to advance her career. So they actually think as she does. This is troubling.

This is troubling and, if history is to be believed, this is not factual. I find it difficult to believe that the 4 faces carved in Mt. Rushmore are there regardless of the fact that these people were corrupt.

Let me ask you something. What has happened to the notion of honesty in our leaders? What about the legend of George Washington as a child admitting to his father that he cut down the cherry tree and saying, "I cannot tell a lie"? I thought that this set the tone and the standard of what we are to expect from our leaders. Does anyone remember “Honeset Abe”?

If these ideals are dead, then let’s play the devils advocate for a moment.. So let's go along with the premise that all politicians are corrupt crooks, and the reason we should respect, support and admire Hillary is that she has not been caught.

Well, if this is the case, I have to tell you something. Time is up for Hilary. The gig is up. The game is officially over her. She has just been caught and there is no possible way she can squirrel tunnel her way out of this one.

There is one important fact in law enforcement. The longer an habitual offender practices her crime, the more likely she will get caught. It does not matter how careful she is, time is not on her side. Sooner or later she will become too confident and slip up.

This time around, the persons involved are too famous and there are too many witnesses and people involved.

Here is a brief description of Hillary Clinton's Stan Lee / Peter Paul Campaign Fraud. Democrat leaders conspired with the Clintons to obtain millions in campaign contributions and hid it from the Feds. Stan Lee (who, in case you do not know, is the creator of Spiderman) wanted to have Bill Clinton's genius when he left office to create a new entertainment company. In order to do this Stan Lee and Peter Paul contributed or help with fund raisers for the Clintons and the DNC. The details of this and how the money was hidden are all over the Internet and I will not repeat it here. The Clintons also managed to sell the newly created company against Stan Lee's wishes to a Japanese company.

The Clintons are not going to get away with this. The wheels of justice move slowly and this is why Hillary Clinton is still able to campain for the presidency. But already the hand of the law is reaching out to her. While she is campaigning, a judge in Los Angeles has been preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul’s Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

There are many witnesses. Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

On March 7th, 2008, Terry McAulfee emailed me the following message:
Dear William,

Just one day after Senator Obama promised to begin attacking Hillary, a senior Obama advisor has called her a "monster."

That's right -- a "monster."

At the same time, Senator Obama's aides have begun rehashing the old negative attacks of the 90's against Hillary.

This is not the politics of hope -- it's the usual attack style politics that we have seen time and time again.

And it must stop.

Only you can make that happen. A contribution now will show the Obama campaign that there is a price to this kind of attack politics.
Make a contribution to stop the Obama attacks.

You and I know Hillary is a fighter -- she has been fighting for what she believes in for 35 years, and as president, she's going to fight for us. So let's make sure she knows we have her back.

Thank you,

Terry McAuliffe

Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President

P.S. Calling Hillary a "monster" isn't the only attack we're seeing from the Obama campaign. We've seen deceptive radio attack ads and deceptive mailings in Texas and Ohio -- and now in Wyoming and Mississippi. Let's stop these attacks now -- make a contribution today.

There are a lot of mistakes in this email. Hillary has not been fighting for us for the last 35 years. Shaking hands with dignitaries as the first lady of the United States and giving pecks on the cheek of wives of heads of state (like, Yasser Arafat’s wife) does not mean she is fighting for us.

I did not appreciate the tone of this email and I did not appreciate what it is saying. It is suggesting that there needs to be a subpression of free speech. The leftists are all about controlling information and the subpression of free speech. Isn’t that right, comrade. Being critical is ok, only if you are critical of the right.

I think Hillary's staff is worried that the truth about her is coming to the surface. If calling her a monster was so uncalled for and off-base. Sending out urgent emails would not be called for or thought of.
I wrote Mr. McAulifee back:

But The Obama staff member who called Hillary a monster has resigned.
Has Hillary ever considered resigning for the good of her party? I think that would be too noble of a cause for her to consider for any fleeting moment.

Now that we are on this subject. How exactly is Hillary NOT a monster? Even her supporters admit that her career is based on avoidance rather than advancement. She had made a career out of avoiding prosecution instead of advancing any cause or bettering the lives of anyone other than herself.

This is what people mean when they call Hillary "intelligent' or "smart". She is only intelligent in the talent of dodging legal prostitution. Being lucky and being crafty is not being intelligent. An habitual offender is only considered clever until their luck runs out. And it seems that Hillary's luck has run out with the Stan Lee campaign scandal.

Thanks, Bill

[Bill Thompson]

"Bill Thompson" here is identifying himself as "Debbie" the young asian woman cross posting videos in Spanish on YouTube. Creepy!

Good moat to keep out the dolts.

If you are creeped out, it worked.

People are less likely to fly off the handle and be rude when they do not know the gender of the person they are dealing with. Why do you think telephone operators were once all female. AT&T found out that people are not rude to women when they have a complaint. I find that just because people do not want to believe what I am telling them, they resort to insults and name calling rather than discuss my points.

I am not on YouTube to find a mate. So I do not care how I appear. I only care about the message.

Besides, I am using a synthetic famale voice to to text-to-speech. I think it sounds better. I like the sound of the famale voice better than man's. So that is why i borrowed a woman's image. Because it is read by a woman's voice. It fits. I might add that "Debbie" is just reading what I wrote.

Alright, I went and changed it to "Synthetic Voice Debbie". YouTube takes 6 hours to update. I hope you are happy and less creeped out.

I also wanted my messgae to be read by women. I wanted to target women who would probably not listen to me because I am a man. The argument FOR Hillary that I heave heard is that she is a women. That is all. The argument some women have made is that because she has a womb she knows how to take care of and love life. So, if a woman thought or did not know what gender i was, I might reach someone.

But because some dork is creeped out, I am motivated to change that.

[Bill Thompson]

I was right. Ya'll were wrong. Nah nee nah nee doo doo!

[volatile]

No you weren't You said she wouldn't be the Nominee because she was a Communist, which is obviously wrong.

[Darth Rotor]

No you weren't You said she wouldn't be the Nominee because she was a Communist, which is obviously wrong.
I am trying to see how that matters. She's out. I am surprised that with a four year preparation stage, she and her team buggered it.

Maybe she isn't as smart as I thought she was.

DR

[chipmunk stew]

I am trying to see how that matters. She's out. I am surprised that with a four year preparation stage, she and her team buggered it.

Maybe she isn't as smart as I thought she was.

DR
To be fair to Ms. Clinton and her team, I don't think any amount of planning and perfect execution would have been enough to overcome Obama. He's just the most compelling and attractive candidate in the current political climate, and it was (and still is) his to lose.

[volatile]

I am trying to see how that matters. She's out. I am surprised that with a four year preparation stage, she and her team buggered it.

Maybe she isn't as smart as I thought she was.

DR

Oh, you're 100% correct. I just wanted to point out to our friend Bill that whilst he was crowing that his prediction came true, it manifestly did not - Hilary is most certainly not the Dem candidate because she's a Communist (as he claimed), but because, as you rightly assert, she's not as smart as the world thought she was.

If the tea-leaves pick the winner of the National and your horse subsequently comes home, you still weren't right.