BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:25 PM

As a superdelegate, I have switched my endorsement from ___________ to Guest from Sanity.    Oh crap, please don't wake me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:53 PM

"(we) are told what to think, not 'how' to think!!..Remember, right wing and left wing are on the same bird..(and its not our eagle, either)"

Dead right. Right smack on target once again. I remember so well...that is exactly what pissed me off about the "social studies" (read: political indoctrination) classes I took in New York State in the 60s...and, for that matter, about almost ALL the stuff I was being taught in school.

I was not being taught HOW to think...I was being taught WHAT to think. That's what is always done in a controlled-from-the-top-down-by-an-elite-oligarchy type of society...what you might call a great totalitarian state in the making. They tell you WHAT to think about everything. You say it all back to them like a parrot, and they give you a good mark. You do this until you're an adult, and then maybe you get a job as another unthinking link in the many links of the great chains that bind you.

It all sounds a bit like Mordor to me, only not quite as obvious to the naked eye, that's all. It's Mordor under a clever marketing scheme with nice consumer goods to fill your house up with.

There was a time when people were thought how to think, but such times are rare in human history. There was a time like that once in Athens when teachers like Plato and Socrates were alive. To have a healthy and functioning democracy you need to teach your young people how to think independently. Then they can think for themselves.

I found out how to think for myself when I was a kid, but not in school!   No, I found out how to do that out at home, by reading hundreds of books and considering thousands of possible alternatives to the standard conformist "party line" I was being spoonfed by the ruling system in society, and I have never stopped questioning that party line most stringently.

Those 2 big political parties are a sick joke. Like "voice of Sanity" says, they are two wings on the same bird, and it's a vulture, or something worse than a vulture.

Is there any use in choosing between them, Riginslinger? Is the exercise totally pointless? You asked that. Well....I guess if it comes down to the point that there is no other chance of casting a vote that's going to accomplish anything, then one chooses between the Big Two. Or one doesn't. You have to follow your own best instincts on that. Yeah, I would choose between them at this point, but not with any huge expectations.

This time around I would vote for the Democrats. I know they are a corrupt party, I know they cannot be trusted at all when in office, but I would still vote for them this time because I could not stomach rewarding the similarly corrupt Republicans for the damage they have done in the past 8 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:01 PM

National Post

Clinton Likely to Suspend Bid on Friday

New York Times - 3 hours ago
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MICHAEL LUO Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Barack Obama on Friday after Democratic members of Congress urged her on Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to unite ...

Clinton Plans to Concede Race, Endorse Rival Obama Within Days

Bloomberg - 1 hour ago
By Kristin Jensen and Lorraine Woellert June 4 (Bloomberg) -- New York Senator Hillary Clinton is planning to concede the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and announce her support for Illinois Senator Barack Obama, her campaign said.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:23 AM

Hillary "would unite the Democratic party"?   What rock have you been living under since 2007. She had her chance to do so--in fact scads of chances, including direct invitations in debates--but would have had to start with admitting she was wrong to vote for the force authorization against Iraq in 2002. John Edwards did, as did many others.

That was her "original sin"--for which she needed to ask "absolution"--and never did. Failing that, she would never have united the Democratic party--or gotten the votes of many independents.

This refusal drove the anti-war wing of the Democratic party away from her. They needed another home--and when Hillary and Obama were the last candidates, no question where they would go. Not to Hillary.

Whether it's the arrogance of the unquestioned front-runner, conviction that she could run from the start as if in the general election (triangulation) , fear of being thought weak, or another reason-- her refusal to take responsibility for her part in the start of the Iraq war is her main problem--from which virtually all the others stem.

She had all the advantages--money, name recognition, support of the Democratic Establishment.

The nomination was hers to lose--and she lost it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:26 AM

I've been reading this thread, and am very struck with the brilliance, and articulation from some of you, especially Guest from Sanity, and Little Hawk. You guys blow me away! Keep posting. Right on, Tia, my vote goes to Guest of Sanity. Maybe Little Hawk would be his/her running mate!..Keep it up!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:39 AM

Amos--

That's great news. Then the question becomes what she will be willing to do to help ensure Obama's election. Lip service won't cut it.

As I said earlier, I'd send her and Bill back to KY, WV, etc. to tell her fans how and why Obama would be a much better choice than McCain for them.

But I'd also send somebody I could trust along with them--to make sure they did it right.

I don't have much use for Mr. Reagan. But he said one good thing: "Trust, but verify".

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:09 AM

I think the thing that may have hurt Hillary the most (other than her position and her record on the war) was her obvious sense of entitlement. She clearly thought from the beginning that there was simply no way she could not end up being the chosen Democratic candidate for president...and then the president. It was already a foregone conclusion in her mind, and that was pretty obvious. That annoyed a lot of people, and it turned a lot of potential support away from Hillary Clinton at various stages in the campaign. Then the Clintons pulled a few really dirty tricks on Obama...which naturally delighted people who wanted to see Obama go down...but it alienated a lot of other people at the same time, specially in the Black community. In the past the Clintons were always able to count on the support of the Black vote in America, but not this time. This was, I think, a most unexpected situation for Hillary to find herself in...so she turned to the other constituency where she was potentially strong: working class White democrats who would fear the Blacks as a united force and who would resent any candidate who they thought wasn't "one of them" (in whatever sense...class, attitude, intellectual credentials, race, etc).

The ironical thing is...Hillary and Bill are not "one of them" either, if you know what I mean. ;-) Hillary and Bill Clinton are just as much if not more people of the social elite as Barack Obama is...but they have posed themselves as heroes of working class America. Ha! That is amusing to me.

And it's interesting, because the White working class demographic they were aiming at pretty much bought it. That just goes to show, I guess, both the power of the media machine in general and the willingness of people to suspend reality and believe whatever they want to believe.

Wishful thinking.

Now the question is, how much of Obama's support will also turn out to be wishful thinking of a different sort? How will he address the tremendous hopes he has raised, if elected? How can he? I really don't know. I'm not sure one way or another about Obama's real values and intentions, though I do admire his speaking ability and his personal presentation a lot. He's a very fine orator.

If he gets elected...then we see. The proof is in the pudding.

One other comment. Hillary's speech on Tuesday night was one hell of a good speech. She was evasive, or coy, in that she never suggested conceding defeat to Obama despite the fact that it was basically inevitable...but just as a political speech, period, it was one hell of a good speech. I was surprised at how good it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:20 AM

Obama is coming from a deeper place than most politicians, and he has a keen sense of timing and a creative streak in defining his steps. This is going to be an interesting and exciting campaign and if he wins it, an interesting eight years.

May his shields stay strong.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:38 AM

Ok, ok, ok, now let's get the record straight. Cecil, its Guest FROM Sanity, not Guest OF Sanity. Jeez, I wouldn't want you to vote for the wrong guy, or leave a hanging participle or chad! And as so far as the headlines, yeah, maybe with Hillary(Hiltery) supporting O-blabbo, maybe she can do for him what Billy did for(to) her! And my Dearest, sweet Tia, I was thinking of reaching across, and waking you up, and, well.....but alas, I'll let you sleep...I'll be so lonely tonight, that I'll lay in bed, alone, fart, and pull the covers over my own head! And to Little Hawk, jeez, if this Hitlery thing is over, (which has yet to be seen, and still obscene) this blog thread will go the way of the whooping crane. Where do we go from here??......(still thinking about Tia)...hey....awwww, never mind.........

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:52 AM

Amos, Down deep O-blabbo is shallow. Just check his voting record, while 'representing' his state........if you can find one...Actually I have an interesting FACT about O-blabbo, but I best not post it, or the Clinton posse would come after me, and dear ladies and gentlemen, this would blow you AWAY!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:22 AM

"Guest from Sanity" When did you escape? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:19 AM

As I said earlier, it's amazing how much "Sanity" sounds like Janet. I had thought it had been made very clear that every poster is only to take one name. I note "Fantasma" is also again with us. Wonder how that's been arranged. Just idle curiosity. No need to anybody to get her knickers in a twist.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:31 AM

"No need for anybody..."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 08:00 AM

"O-blabbo," that describes him.

             I suspect that a lot of Democrats will vote for McCain this time around just for the purpose of giving Hillary another shot in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 08:22 AM

Another poster with a wonderful track record.

I'm sure a lot of voters will vote for McCain--if they don't care about ending the Iraq war, separation of church and state, protecting Roe v Wade, or trying to do something about the disastrous Bush economy.

And therefore prefer the ostrich approach to politics.

Perhaps that describes the poster who made the remark about voting for McCain to give Hillary another chance in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:55 AM

Nope. I'm not Janet. and as so far as 'protecting Roe v. Wade...too bad your mother didn't take advantage of it, when she was pregnant with you! Funny how everybody who is 'so much for it', has already been born! Another sacred cow for the irresponsible way people have sex. Just remember, the Romans, how they would tickle their throats with a feather, so they could throw up, and eat more, at banquets. They even had separate rooms just for that activity. Rather decadent, wouldn't you say? Got news for you, ask any woman, about the psychological toll it takes upon them, to have an abortion. But of course, I'm sure you'd argue that having an abortion, (at our expense), is a good thing..be the first on your block to get one! Well, as long as we 'get' to pay for it, then I can damn well say, that I don't appreciate it! If you like it so much, just volunteer to pay for them, out of your private funds, rather than forcing us to pay for them. Go ahead, whip out your check book! And, by the way, McCain is certainly not the answer, either! Funny, how the federal government forces their employees to retire, at age 64, but then we get this action! The person to be wary of, is who they prop up for his running mate! Perhaps Condaleeza Rice, ..oh cool, that way they could pander to black and women voters, regardless if she was on the Board of Directors of, your friends,Exxon. Did you know that??? If O-blabbo was president, I guarantee you, that when you look back of the Bush presidency, it will look like the good ol' days..which it certainly is not! You need to really think deeper...you remember that, don't you...thinking?? Yes, dear brothers and sisters, we are in a pickle here. Perhaps there is still time an American candidate may emerge running not affiliated with either of the crowd of felons, that make our laws. By the way, accepting a bribe, (read: special interest 'lobbying') is still a felony. Now watch, Mr. Sensitive will be all pissy at me!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,JOYCE L KEERL
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:12 PM

I WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY IN NOVEMBER.
I WILL "NOT" VOTE SHOULD OBAMA BE THE NOMINEE!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:18 PM

Why did you put quotes around "not"? You make it look like you don't really mean it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:24 PM

That's a good idea, Joyce. If Hillary doesn't get the nod for VeePee, those of us who feel like we was robbed could just "write in" Hillary in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest form Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:27 PM

hey, Little Hawk, I salute you, nice to see you are on!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:34 PM

Hi! ;-) I can't stay away. It's become a behavioral addiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:35 PM

One thing for sure about Hitlery...I bet you there are no stains on HER dress!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM

Can we cut out the cutesy hitlery, et cetera, comments? You are over the age of 12, aren't you? If you are not, I apologize; it would be what I would expect from someone that age. sheesh

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:54 PM

Well, I guess the first amendment rights were replaced with 'Political Correctness'?? I was merely exercising my right of expressing MORAL CORRECTNESS!! Funny how our rights have been eroded, so subtly, and willingly. And as far as being 12??...careful, or I'll turn you over my knee!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:18 PM

Looks like those who wish to vote for Hillary will have to write in her name. It ain't gonna be on the ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

Same goes for Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:31 PM

Or George Bush for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:33 PM

Which gets us to another issue. How do you write in a candidate on an electronic voting machine?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

Truthfully, I don't know if write-ins are even allowed in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:38 PM

I should mention that I have voted for Fu Koff more than once. (In Canada.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:45 PM

I can recall having room to write in candidates in the past. I can vaguely remember having done that at some time, though I think it was for a senator.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:04 PM

We get many slates at the provincial level where we have a half dozen candidates to choose from. Federally, there are about 40 parties, but only five or so ever have a serious shot at taking seats in the House of Commons.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:10 PM

There's the Christian Heritage Party...they run Biblicly inspired candidates here (in Ontario), and they usually get about 1/2 of one percent of the vote or something along that line.

There are a lot of small fringe parties in the USA too...but you'd never know it because the mass media only talks about the Democrats and the Republicans. That's because the same interests that own the Democrats and Republicans also own the mass media. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:20 PM

I'm inclined to agree with that, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

Yes, completely!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:19 PM

"Political correctness" has nothing to do with it. Are you truly saying that Senator Hillary Clinton is like Adolf Hitler? Insanity must run in certain families.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:21 PM

Yes, we can write in someone's name. Don't forget to check the box next to the name, though. The name alone will not count.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:01 AM

My Dearest Sweet Ebbie,
   To answer your question, Hillary's agenda, as with O-blabbo's agenda, calls for nationalized health care, gun control, state controlled ..well, just about everything. These are socialist programs..you know as in the 'Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic'. Under our constitution, it states that our rights are inalienable God given, that all me are created equal, etc. etc. In a Socialist state, the STATE gives you the right, and or permission to do as to what they will allow you to do, and or to re-disperse the wealth (incomes) of people who earn them as they see fit. in other words, a socialist government tells you that everything is from and for them. In a free society, we still have the freedom to choose, a course(self determination). Now, I admit, and argue that our freedoms are being eroded, one by one, so at this point, jumping into socialism, is not a far leap(thanks to the agendas of corrupt politicians), but it is still a leap into a form of government that is not what we are founded on. The fact we can say what we want to say on here, or anywhere, is a freedom we still enjoy(1st amendment). to have and bear arms(2nd) habeas corpus (4th, due process of law) those are our guaranteed freedoms(among others) that we still live under. In a socialist state run government, those are gone! Now, though you have a guarantee that you can say what you will, doesn't mean one may choose to do that, and that's ok, but to regulate that, and or forbidding political discussions, because you may criticize the state(which we ALL do), is NOT the society that America was ever about....but it would be, if we went socialist. Same as the right to bear arms, though I might not want to own a weapon, is my choice. Doesn't mean every one who has one is going to shoot someone, but you still have the right to own one. Just like because you have the freedom of speech, doesn't mean you can shoot your mouth off! The word Nazi, interpreted is national socialist party. Both hillary and O-blabbo, are two of the senates furthest leaning left(socialist) members. So, there you have the similarity. do you want the state to own and control everything??...or would you like to have a say in it????????

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:35 AM

Jeeze, Voice, you're lumping the Nazis together with all other forms of socialism, with communism as well, and then dumping the whole pot on Obama's head???? That's downright ludicrous.

1. National Socialism as practiced in German is different than the communism used in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

2. Both of the above are different than Marxism as theoretically conceived of by Mark.

3. All of the above are different in kind and degree than the blended social republics operating in some (for example) Scandinavian countries, where some social networks are in place but individual entrepreneurship and capitalism also thrive.

4. All of those are different from the somewhat socialized democratic republic we live in where, for example, the Federal government subsidizes farmers, railroads, Chrysler, and failed banks in order to keep the wheels going around, operates a Social Security system, and writes laws constraining businesses when they get TOO greedy.

All of these instances are somewhat "socialistic".

IF you have to shout "Wolf" every time a dog walks past, you're going run out of audience very soon.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:58 AM

....and that was the short version....Ebbie, you might be disappointed your candidate didn't win, but here is some thing to watch.... she was not as bright as purported to be       http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=101493

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:07 AM

Amos, Amos, Amos....I know the difference between the different forms of government control Do you??...btw its not Mark...its Marx
This country cannot afford to implement a socialist government, nor can it afford the Bozos we have now....We must return to the form that we had of democracy....no 'isms'
Given a choice..would you prefer to be controlled by Clinton, or O-blabbo?..with their ideologies???
Oh, yeah, I forgot...Its for the children.....yadda yadda yadda

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:21 AM

Guest (so far) from Sanity, there are people on this forum who are well able to set you straight on your many, many mistaken assumptions on socialism and for that matter, democracy.

For now, I'll just ask one question: What do you have against Social Security?

(By the way, *my* candidate is and has been for a long time Barack Obama. (and if you'd be so kind as to drop the childish and terribly far off the mark Blabbo thing I would aould think bettter of you. Do you denigrate everyone who is able to speak a coherent paragragh? It sure ain't Bush.)

I defend Senator Clinton when I perceive mistaken but honest views, or blatant untruths and ugliness.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 05:59 AM

Ebs,
I can't tell if you mean 'social society' as socially, or politically, but America, was not founded by or for socialists. If you'd like socialism, there are several socialist countries on this planet to 'vacation' in I suggest picking one, and go there. As so far as O-blabbo for a choice, that's your own choice, but don't tell me that you came to that decision, out of anything but his ability to give a glib speech, that has nothing more than emotional dribble. I think you are just on the 'fashionable' media driven trend that has great momentum, but so very little substance. Give me one..just one example of ANYTHING O-blabbo, has done, for his constituents, or an example of his record, that he has accomplished. You will find in your 'research' that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to get that hot and bothered about, except his hot air rhetoric. and no, I'm not a Bush guy either. As stated above, in previous posts, it should be clear, by now, that all of the people running, are ...well just read it for yourself, and you will find that I'm certainly not alone. So if you want to drag me out on the carpet and scold me, then let's do it intelligently, and not based on some emotional flap. And by the way, if I want to call him O-blabbo, McLame, and Hitlery, I just damn well will, and can. As other previous posters have said, 'that aptly suits him. His voting record shows over 100 times, that he voted 'Present'! Sorry, I'd like to see a little better performance than that!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 07:56 AM

Heck, we've had socialism for the wealthy going back to the Reagan years... It has gotten progressively worse with each administration... Call is voodoo economics or trickle-down economics, it ain't working for the folks who, ahhhh, create the "wealth" that the wealthy disporportionately enjoy???

After 9/11 Bush gave the airlines $26B without any protest about "socialism"... That, BTW, is more than we spend for "No Child Left Behind"... Then when Bear-Sterns found it had made alot of bad investments, Bush gave them $25B??? No protest of "socialism" there either... How about the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.??? No protest of "socialism" there...

But when a country that spends the highest percentage of its GNP on health care and is ranked 17th among develolped nations in health care says to itself, "Hey, this ain't workin", all of a sudden we hear these protests of "socialism"???

Seems purdy strange to me...

Me thinks the real O-blabbo in the equation is right here in Mudville o-blabbing away about a topic for which he or she has very little understanding...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM

Actually, Bobert,, I wholeheartedly agree with you, and even more so than you posted! I think the present candidate's only impetus, is the desperate hope, that we in America, feel, that something, someone, somewhere can deliver us out of the predicament we have found ourselves, due to decades of corrupt administrations, we have allowed to have in office. (see earlier, above posts, of mine). However, the present lot of candidates, are a sorry pack to pick from, and the enthusiasm behind them, is much like last year's enthusiasm, for Sanjaya, on American Idol. This is all being treated like a popularity contest, of whom appeals to who, for reasons altogether separate than that of being an American, patriotic, statesman. If you want to take these clowns seriously, well, be my guest. I prefer to demand a higher standard......yeah yeah yeah..just babbling on........(actually, I prefer to compose music, this blog thing is just a time filler, during the breaks I take, and it shocks me to see how ardently emphatic people get obsessed over nothing). These candidates suck!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:46 PM

Sanjaya? We remind you of those doting on Sanjaya? Please. Personally, I have never seen Sanjaya. Watching that kind of thing may be your idea of entertainment- don't foist it on us.

As for the candidates being a sorry pack: I beg to differ. I think that we ended up with a distinctive set of candidates and their differing values.

If you don't see any good in this, why not run for office yourself? A superlative candidacy, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:14 PM

GFS:

IF you actually came from "sanity", which is manifestly not the case, you would, for one thi9ng, not be so invested in bitter recriminations and slant, arm-waving, over-generalization on negative biases, and ad hominem sarcasms. For all your denial, the similarity between you and certain other chronic guests is remarkable.

Your opinion, like your rectal flap, is your own and welcome to it. But insisting others model theirs on it is self-defeating and a disservice tot he rest of the world.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:38 PM

Can't agree with you on the "socialism" bit, "Sanity". Every modern country has a great deal of socialism, because you cannot run a modern society without it. Most also have a great deal of capitalism. The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are natural partners, just like a man and a woman are, and the healthiest societies are those which balance the two in an equal fashion.

Socialism is not antithetical to the origins of America, because America had a number of socialist institutions right from its inception. Anything that is funded by taxes and employs individuals who are paid by the government is a socialist institution.

If you want pure capitalism you would have to go back to a medieval robber-baron system with the richest and most powerful robber-baron running everything with his stolen money and his hired gangs of mercenary killers to enforce his will. I don't think that's what you want! ;-)

And if you think socialism is by definition "godless", you are also in error. Some of the most notable founders of socialist theory were highly religious people and they saw socialism as a way of fullfilling Christ's message of mercy and kindness to the poor, as set out in the New Testament. In fact, you can make a strong case for Jesus as being a socialist in his own time, not a capitalist!

There are many different forms of socialism. The kind of socialism you fear is at one extreme authoritarian end of the spectrum, and it is not at all representative of socialism in democratic countries like the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Denmark, Holland, etc.

In short, it's a hysterical boogeyman that exists only in the minds of some Americans who frankly haven't got a clue what they're talking about when they talk about socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

"Heck, we've had socialism for the wealthy going back to the Reagan years..."

                   Yes, Bobert, I really think it was at that point that America walked off the cliff. I don't know if it can save itself, but I don't have much faith in the way we're going.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 01:25 AM

The biggest difference is, Little Hawk, and all others, when Jesus spoke of giving, it was from the compassion it comes from the heart, and in realizing that we are all of one, from God,'What you do to the least of them, you do unto me', is quite different to a system, where compulsory, wealth re-distribution, is forced upon it citizenry. American people, are by nature, rather generous people, and usually don't wish war, or cruelty on any other nation, on earth, and has usually donated to those in need, privately, even if we send aid, as a nation. I myself, have done this, as a private volunteer, and am playing,(free) for a benefit to raise money and food, for the needy, this August. This comes from the heart. This is also to alleviate the financial burdens foisted on us by our lovely corporate, owned government. Certain forms of socialism, when subscribed to, can be beneficial. Ones that are forced, and dictated to others,(even as a 'remedy' to offset the ills, brought by corruptness, are not so hip. That being said, still, all of the candidates, before us, in this election, do not represent anything we as Americans are about. They simply do not represent us, and I believe puppets, for something far darker.