Printable View
Don't know how to tell you this except bluntly: I'm an American, so at the end of the day I'm all for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. I could more justifiably join the Republican Party than I could ever join the Socialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Americans just don't do socialism, not really.
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Well said. And amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I forgot to mention free markets. But I guess that's really part of "personal freedom," eh?
Good news from the primary: Hillary and Rudy are in a free-fall, and not just in Iowa. They're dropping like stones nationally. "Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" he chortled in his glee.
Those are my least favorite possible choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Wow, the Clinton machine is really freaking out. Turns out they were sending out smear emails about the much-loathed uppity negro:
Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair. The other was from a person who claimed to be a former Obama supporter, but a little work with Google revealed she had been posting pro-Clinton comments for several months on websites covering the campaign.
They both repeat the Obama/Osama ****, and the "madrassa" charges. And there is the conclusion that Obama is a mole whose intention is to make a Muslim revolution in the US.
Once exposed as a Clinton operative, the peon was sacrificed:
Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle:
"There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."
It's impossible to know whether or not this was authorized by the campaign, but I'm still kinda amazed. And I'm not inclined to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dirty tricks.
If the Democrats nominate her for the Presidency, they deserve to lose.
For Senator Clinton, Senator Obama poses an interesting tactical problem.
She can't out-liberal him as his track record is every bit as "staunch" as hers, and catering a bit more to the Dem left -- though it would cinch the nom for her -- would end up hurting her chances big time in the general. Hilary is well aware of the lessons taught by the Dean implosion. Kerry came off as "electable" by comparison and locked up the nom quickly. Hilary will not let herself be tarnished with a "fringer" image.
If she attacks Obama too virulently, she runs risks with alienating some of the African-descent voters (a key bloc for the Dems) or coming over as too much of a rhymes-with-witch -- which could also hurt her with the electorate (there is still a bit of a double standard here). This must be frustrating, since going negative is often the best means of marginalizing your opponent.
If attacked, she can't play the "victim" card too much without looking weak, but at least then she can counter-punch.
It's interesting to watch the by-play.
Lemur: don't put too much stock in the reports or polls running up to Iowa -- one way or the other. The media always milks this too hard and those Iowans don't really decide until they wander into their respective high schools.
High visibility campaign + tech-unsavvy campaign workers + smear job = lulz for all ~DQuote:
Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair. The other was from a person who claimed to be a former Obama supporter, but a little work with Google revealed she had been posting pro-Clinton comments for several months on websites covering the campaign.
Google rules. ~:cheers:
Et tu, Lemur? Come on, you can wage a more solid attack at the 'Hildebeast' than a google for a misguided county volunteer plus an eagerly thrown about allegation of involvement from the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Should I now google for a blog too, to show that this Clinton supporter, who has also posed as an Obama supporter, is in reality an Obama-machine mole trying to make Clinton look dirty and gain sympathy for Obama?
Also, I'm quite sure that before november '08 we'll have seen smear-campaigns far outweighing this from all candidates. If this is the worst that you can come up with for the Clinton camp yet, than I congratulate her for being such a comparatively honest player.
Hahahahahahaha wow.Quote:
Also, I'm quite sure that before november '08 we'll have seen smear-campaigns far outweighing this from all candidates. If this is the worst that you can come up with for the Clinton camp yet, than I congratulate her for being such a comparatively honest player.
Too bad the current neocons favor debt, war, and retarded moral laws. Man, what happened to the party?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So I can choose between one sack of crap party that tells me I'm a racist if I don't like affirmative action and paying high taxes, or another party that tells me I'm going to hell if I don't like hating gays and war.
GOOD STUFF
One grassroots volunteer forwarding right-wing hate mail does not a smear campaign make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Nothing points in the direction of any involvement of the Clinton team.Quote:
So the Iowa county chair who was volunteering for Hillary and sent the Obama Muslim smear email has been identified: She's one Judy Rose.
Judy Rose -- or, at least, someone with the same name -- is, or was, one of the members of the 250 Iowa women who are leading Team Hillary in that state.
Sasaki made me reconsider some of Giuliani's track record. Others have given me a more balanced perspective on Ron Paul. Thanks for that.
I've got a new question: What's not to like about America's next president, Hillary Clinton? I mean, I'm not sure, but I've got this gut feeling that some of you here have minor doubts about her. Why? She is obviously America's right choice for capitalism, smaller government and personal freedom. Yet I sense minor disagreement with my take on her. What am I overlooking?
Er..I actually meant to write a serious post when I started this. Let's try again, more directly:
What are some objections of all of you to Clinton and her policies?
For me her stance on issues is middling. The reason I don't like her is that I don't trust her. Of all the candidates running she reminds me the most of the stereotypical cigar smoking fat old white man politician. She has switched positions and seems much like Bill.Quote:
What are some objections of all of you to Clinton and her policies?
She also plays the political game too much. Best example, her campaign dug up a kindergarten essay written by Obama to discredit him. (But apparently it's a joke now?)
And I don't want dynasties. We've had Bush I and II, no Clinton I and II
She's a Clinton, she's EVIL!11!one!!1!!eleven!Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Now that that is out of the way, on to my real concerns.
- If elected, she will have a Democrat-controlled Congress to rubber-stamp her desires (much like most of the Bush administration).
- She will most likely continue to move more power to the executive, she is smart and politically savvy enough to do so.
- There are still too many unanswered questions about the goings-on in Slick Willy's administration, which she played a large role in.
- The GOP will never accept her. More partisanship and bile for the news, subpar government for the people amidst all the backstabbing.
And I just don't trust her. She never met a fundraiser she doesn't like, carpetbagged a job in the Senate for New York state (of all places), and stuck with Bill through all his shenanigan's for political reasons, when she should have kicked him to the curb like any good feminist would. Too much ambition.
Oh, and one other thing. I don't want to foot the bill for another 8 years of Secret Service protection for Chelsea. :thinking:
As far as a smear campaign, ever since she began to lose ground in the polls she's personally attacked her rivals and tried to pretend that their criticisms of her are attacks. She calls obama "naive" and then accuses him of attacking her when he says "she hasn't taken a clear position on this issue". Her most recent talking point was making fun of him for a paper he wrote in kindergarten which she later tried to claim was a joke (despite it being part of a serious letter and in a completely different form from all her past jokes).
Her health care plan involves mandates, which obama's doesn't. She uses this to attack his plan as "leaving 15 million americans uninsured". But really, her plan does as well. Car insurance is mandatory and 11% of drivers don't have it. They started a health care mandate program in massachusetts, and huge numbers of people refuse to pay for insurance even though it's mandatory. They can't afford it and would rather risk not getting sick. Obama's plan focuses on making health care as affordable as possible.
She's extremely vague on social security. Her answer to that question during the debate was "I believe in fiscal responsibility. I'll set up a bipartisan commitee to look into it". Obama would raise the cap on people making more than $97,000 which clinton calls a tax on the middle class (!), note that only the richest 6% make over that amount.
She voted for the iraq war, and recently to declare the iran national guard a terrorist unit.
The biggest issue is that she isn't honest. She believes that she knows what's best and will tell it to the people in a form they want to hear. This kind of belief is what got us into iraq in the first place--the bush administration believed it was best to go to war and told stories about wmd's etc.
Not to be mean, but is this a joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Smaller government?
HAHAHAHA
emm, sorry
a) I don't trust her
b) She's not smaller government. No democrat that is running is smaller government. Anyone who tells you they are, is not telling the truth.
That pretty much sums up why I don't like her.
Sorry Sasaki, although 97k is a good salary, people who make that are not really considered wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Besides, you have to look geographically. Someone is Orange County making 97k a year is probably considered middle class.
Anyway, Obama's plan would pretty much be a band aid. Sooner or later, SS will run out as more people retire and the fund will dry up unless it is somehow reformed in a correct manner.
I'd vote for her (if she gets nominated) just to see if having a woman in the office would make a difference. Can't be that bad. Heck, we've had an ape in the office for the past 7 years and look, we're still here, still alive. I wouldn't mind the experiment if the dems nominate her. The only way I wouldn't vote for her is if the pubs select McCain.
The only people who don't consider it upper class are the people who don't understand the concept of 'middle'. If your coach tells you to stand near the middle of the field do you go lounge around in a lawn chair down by the endzone wearing a suit and sipping a martini?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Capitalism? Possibly. Few Presidents ever had the bravery (or the gall) to stand up against Corporate America or implement wide-ranging social or economic reforms, especially not without a crisis with the scale of the Great Depression. No politician would want to lose the single largest pool of campaign money in the entire United States by opposing business interests, not in these days when "war chest" wins elections. And if anyone's a politician, it's Mrs. Clinton.
The same haphazard, consumer rights-breaking capitalistic model will stay with the USA into the forseeable future, regardless of the next President's attitudes.
Smaller government? Of course not. She's a Democrat, an ex-President's wife (as such familiar with "power"), and doesn't show any signs of planning to reduce any government functions any time soon. Everybody talks about reducing government -- it is a big deal to a lot of Americans -- but just about nobody except that loon Ron Paul will actually try an act on it. Not a chance.
Reagan's "smaller government" saw the Military-Industrial Complex expanded to unprecedented sizes after all...
Personal Freedom? lol. People hate Hillary and Giuliani for a reason: they appear like Putin-lites. Imperial Presidents, I think, is the term. Sounds cool, sounds powerful; world-changing world leaders and all that. But I love my rights more than my King or Queen. And I don't want a repeat of King George's "Patriots."
One thing annoying about opposing her is that her supporters will quickly point you out as a misogynist. I call them racists for being anti-Obama in return, but hey, all's fair in Politics. :sweatdrop:
Not that I don't think 97000$ is "rich," but I believe Ice's point has to do with relative living costs as well. A 97000$ in Southern California means much less than the same money in Tucson, Arizona.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Besides, everybody calls himself a "Middle Class" person in America. ~;)
So someone making an income that is 50% +- of the population isn't middle class?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Edit: Sorry +-
No problem with her policies really. Her and Obama have almost the exact same stance on every issue and I agree with most of them. The problem as several people have stated is that she can't be trusted. She is in it for the personal glory and not what is best for the American people. If you support her policies then I suggest that you check out Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Why is Hilary a problem?
Is it because she'd likely end up as our most incompentent president ever? NO! We've had some real nimrods in there on occasion. Harding comes to mind. Carter is my personal fave for this (personal honor score excellent, just couldn't get it done in the oval).
Is it because she'd lead an administration riddled with corruption? No! She'd have to go a long stretch to reach the pinnacles established by Grant's thieves (Grant himself was okay, but his coterie....:shame: ) or Harding's scoundrels and pimps (yes they really were running a call-girl service out of the back door of the White House).
No, I think it's because of Hilary's relationship with power. When I consider her, I just have trouble shaking the feeling that I'm looking at someone who would consume their own young to achieve the pinnacle of power.
I don't what you mean with the +-.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
"Middle class" is very vague unless you specify the context. Originally it meant white collar jobs vs blue collar jobs, but it can mean a certain lifestyle, beliefs, income level etc. But there is a context here since we are discussing taxes. So the measuring stick is income level. I would say that people who don't have enough money are poor, people who have enough are middle class, and people who have more than enough are upper class. If you make 97k you make more than enough money. The only people who think otherwise have a distorted idea of "enough". The tax would come out to 2-3k.
That's like saying "yeah I have a really expensive car, so I have less money than my neighbor with a used buick". Southern California costs more to live in because it's more desirable, i.e. people are willing to pay more to live there. They get what they pay for.Quote:
Not that I don't think 97000$ is "rich," but I believe Ice's point has to do with relative living costs as well. A 97000$ in Southern California means much less than the same money in Tucson, Arizona.
I guess the criticism your making is that someone who makes 87000 in tucson, would normally make 97000 in so-cal, but with the tax they only end up with 95. But this is inherent in our bracketed system. There are tons of people who lose money if they go up in salary.
Exactly. No one wants to be seen as "upper class" and not many want to be seen as "working class". The middle class is the ideal, the "real americans". Which is why clinton tries to imply that her opponents would tax them more.Quote:
Besides, everybody calls himself a "Middle Class" person in America.
Not to completely derail the thread, but I don't think $97,000 is the mean or median income in America. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Going back to the Hillary subject, my objections to her are as follows:
- Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II. This may seem trivial to you, but it isn't to me. This is America, and we just don't do dynasties. Or at least we shouldn't. If I never have to hear about another Bush or Clinton again, I'll be quite happy.
- Honesty. I realize that all politicians will say what they have to say to gain and retain power, but the Clintons take dishonesty to a new and spectacular level of artistry. I expect politicians to bend the truth, but I don't like for them to do it constantly.
- Power for power's sake. I fear a Hillary presidency will only increase the pace at which the Administrative branch of our government swallows more power. As drone pointed out, she's plenty savvy enough to consolidate the Imperial Presidency.
- One-party rule. Didn't we get enough of that under Bush II?
- Paranoia. Both Hillary and Rudy have paranoid tendencies, and tend to define the world in Us v. Them battlefields. Haven't we had enough of that lately? Aren't we ready for something different? I don't call her "Nixon in a pantsuit" randomly.
I hope that provides some sort of framework for understanding why I oppose her.
-edit-
Thought of one more objection: Polarization. Hillary's Presidency would be a win for anyone who enjoys scorched-earth partisan warfare. She'd be great for Daily Kos and Rush Limbaugh, but bad for the nation. We do not need another divisive president. Not now.
This point of contention grows on me more each time I ponder it. You're correct, my proto-simian friend, "dynasties" should feel wrong to all of usin the good ole USA. As should the possibility for Jeb making it Bush III to follow Clinton II and Chelsea to follow that. Even the Romans thought it best to spread the leadership among the gens more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It's a dirty era politically -- they recur for us with some frequency -- so in that context this is less bothersome to me (though I agree with you, of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Already posted on this just above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I get frustrated to how partisanship plays in with this, but not to 1 party having a period of temporary dominance in and of itself. If the party in the minority took a watch dog role -- as in: you're calling the shots, but if we see fraud, abuse of power etc. we'll crucify you for it and take back control for our agenda -- that would be fine. With our currently hyped-up partisanship, what we get is: you're calling the shots, NOT! We're gonna mess with everything you do since everything you do is evil incarnate (even -- or especially -- if it makes sense) and use every trick to prevent you from doing anything, prevent you from getting any credit except for failure and then hammer you as a group of do-nothings and losers. This doesn't gridlock government, it hamstrings it. I like smaller government. Large AND inneffective is the worst of BOTH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Heard any Hannity or Savage broadcasts in the last couple of years? :devilish:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I agree with you as to her approach. She does political reward and punish in a very Nixonian fashion. If anything, the Clinton team is more effective at political destruction. Nixon's crew embarrassed Muskie and took out the only viable opposition in one move. Clinton's team likes to do that and, if possible, end the career of their opponent as well to minimize revenge strikes. Its practical in an RTW "always exterminate" sort of way.
I think the current era of hyper-partisanship is a phasic component of US politics. However, Hillary's election would do NOTHING to bring us toward a shift in phase. As you and others have noted it would only intensify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Some good thoughts Lemur.
Romney's faith speech was great.
GB and Bar made a cameo
That out-of-control lunatic, Ron Paul, had this to say:
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.
Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.
The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.
Who but a madman could spout such nonsense?
Apologies for jumping off topic,
Lemur, Sasaki, Ice,
The 97,000 is in the Top 20% for income. It's about the average for someone with a Doctorate. The middle 33% range is $30,000 to $62,500.
Some Fun Numbers. Now that that's done...
May I say that Ron Paul is growing on me daily. Why must he be a foreign policy and economic disaster waiting to happen?