BS: Hillary Tapped Out???

Subject: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM

Well, geeze....

Seems that Hillary Clinton has gone thru the $100M, or so, campaign funds and has had to hit up her own bank account foer $5M just to keep afloat...

Now excuse me but didn't Hillary and Obama have roughly the same amount of money about a month ago???

And excuse me, Part B, but seems that Obama still has plenty on money left of the $100M or so, so in these times whwn fiscal responsibility/irresponsibilty is a major concern of voters looking at a tanking economy, doesn't this say something about Obama's ability to manage finances???

Just food for thought...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

Yikes! I saw a set of polls that said (a) Hillary is preferred over Obama, (b)McCain would beat Hilary and (c) Obama would beat McCain.

Does that make no circular sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM

She is tapped out Bobert, not due to fiscal mismanagement, but due to the fact that Big Money and the Democratic party establishment, is backing Obama.

That shift is recent--within the past several months.

Obama has usurped Clinton as the establishment candidate.

Don't worry Mrrzy, the polls are proving to be wrong this year, at least on the Dem side. They are predicting what the establishment wants predicted--that Obama will win the nomination.

Only problem is, they haven't bamboozled enough voters yet to make them get with the program. But they will, if the Mudcat forum voters are any gauge of the effectiveness of the propaganda machine.

The Mudcat voters got their marching orders--it is Obama, do or die.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:15 AM

Yessiree, anybody can give me orders and I'll just go marching in lockstep and goose step, off to the polls.

And once there I'll goddamn well vote for whomever I please, got that?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:15 AM

Well, Obama doesn't have to cover Bill's bar tab.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:43 AM

You think so, GG? Interesting theory. I always figured they had their plans firmly set on Hillary...but perhaps they've shifted gears for some reason.

Well, I won't venture any predictions.

Either way, it would be interesting to see the psychological shift that could be accomplished in the USA by actually electing a Black president or a female president. It wouldn't change the real sources of power behind the "throne" any, but it would still be an interesting shift in people's expectations regardless.

Canada and Great Britain have both had female prime ministers by now...although, in Canada's case, it was just a brief hiccup...not of much significance, I'm afraid. Kim Campbell wasn't elected. She took over from the previous Liberal Prime Minister while the Liberals were the government. I think the chances of a female prime minister being elected in Canada are still very, very slim.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:57 AM

Also, Bill Clinton would get to be "First Laddy" if they elected Hillary. LOL!!! Just think of all the free time he would have to romp around the White House, redecorate the rooms, entertain the staff....

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM

On the news this AM (MSM by the way) they said Hillary blew her wad here in Iowa. Still didn't win.


First Laddy, eh?

I had always figured the first husband of a female president would be called the first gentleman but I don't think I could call Bill Clinton that with a straight face.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:03 PM

You mean genitalman

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: pdq
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:07 PM

In the vernacular, that would be dickhead.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Peace
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:25 PM

"The Mudcat voters got their marching orders--it is Obama, do or die."

Yeah. Right. Like anyone could give orders here and have them obeyed. Go look at 'Staying on topic in threads'. Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:28 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:01 AM

Yikes! I saw a set of polls that said (a) Hillary is preferred over Obama, (b)McCain would beat Hilary and (c) Obama would beat McCain.

Does that make no circular sense?

Hillary has a slight edge over Obama among Democrats, but she carries a lot of baggage that makes her vastly unpopular among non-Democrats. Some people who might not actually be pro-McCain may vote for him as a vote against Hillary. Obama doesn't have Hillary's baggage. He hasn't done enough to make him unpopular. There's no reason for anyone to vote against him.

Of course, there are those who would vote against Obama because he's black, just as there are those who would vote against Hillary because she's a woman. There's nothing to be done for those people except wait for them to die off.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Midchuck
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:57 PM

Of course, there are those who would vote against Obama because he's black, just as there are those who would vote against Hillary because she's a woman. There's nothing to be done for those people except wait for them to die off.

There are probably quite a few who would vote FOR Obama solely because he's black, and some who would vote FOR Clinton just because she's a woman. Is that not just as bad? And I feel sorry for black women Democrats. If they vote for Clinton, they're traitors to their race, if for Obama, traitors to their sex.

(By the way, how come "Obama" and "Hillary." OK to call her by her first name because she's only a gurrrl?)

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: pdq
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 01:15 PM

That is an easy one, Midchuck.

The name 'Clinton' means Bill and the name 'Hillary' means the other Clinton. Far less confusion that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 01:55 PM

That was Hillary's choice, also. Her ads all say Hillary, but it bugs me too, that she gets first-named. She should just go back to Rodham.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:11 PM

I saw an ad on the TV last night. Obama. Re universal health care. "Available" and "affordable".

Unless I missed something, or didn't understand him, or got that wrong... bullshit.... open-ended, backtrackable bullshit.

I hope I am wrong. (Not that it matters a whit to me. I have the scars to prove that Canada's Medicare system is pretty good.)

Can anyone explain away the (perceived on my part) bullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:04 PM

Members of Moveon have voted to endorse Obama and, since Super Tuesday, have contributed over seven million dollars to his campaign.

Amos, thanks for the link to the Atlantic article.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:18 PM

I sent her some money. She'll be all right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:06 PM

This is an absolutely fascinating study on human nature.

Obama, who has based his whole campaign on inspirational speaking and no promises is being backed by big money.

Hillary who prides herself on her track record of working for the not so privileged gets most of her support from those people.

Why does big money back Obama?

Don't any of you wonder about this?

Money talks, Hillary walks.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Peace
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:10 PM

"Don't any of you wonder about this?"

Yes, many of us do. I figure BIG MONEY backs everyone, because when Whoever gets elected, the money gets paid back, usually with a significant interest earning attached.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM

Last I heard, they both had a little over $100M... That was not that long ago... Maybe mid-December...

Maybe someone can find that report... That, of course would have included the MoveOn $$$...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Peace
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:14 PM

You know how that is Bobert: a few million here, a few hundred million there and pretty soon it adds up yo real money.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:18 PM

Okay, I guess that is my answer. Big money and bullshit.

Same old, same old.

Good luck, America. Yer gonna need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:25 PM

I thought all he wanted was change.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Peace
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:26 PM

LOLOLOL

THAT was good, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 04:39 PM

Today on his show Rush Limbaugh said he was going to possibly start a fund drive for her so they don't have to fight Obama for the presidency.

Where and when are these marching orders issued? I have never gotten any at all. I am having to delve deeply here and there to see where I caucus on Saturday, even though I already paper primary voted.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:26 PM

I think that with Super Tuesday out of the way and both parties down to a two horse race, all candidates are about to come under much closer scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:27 PM

You know, it may well be that Clinton isn't popular among independents. She seems to be here, though. And she apparently got a bit of a fundraising bump from MN in the past week by independent women voters who didn't like the way the wind blew out of the caucuses.

Clinton got her ass whupped here in MN last Tuesday.

Ah Oprah. Voice for the Race. And I had the audacity to play her small. What was I thinking? Oprah is always right, righteous, and far richer than Obama is brilliant.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:45 PM

All joking aside: I do think that Oprah has much more sway than I had anticipated.
Ted Kennedy couldn't budge Hillary's support in Massachusetts.
Arnold failed in much the same way in California.
Oprah's target audience however, seems much more willing to let her do the deciding for them.
The rebound effect from that could be excellent news for the Clinton camp or it could be enough to sink them.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:36 PM

Obama has big money behind him. Hillary doesn't.

Right. Anything you say. And what is the source for this assertion? You know, a little evidence might be nice. Though we'll give a gut feeling all the respect it deserves.

By the way, the WSJ disagrees. (7 Feb 2008).

Rebuilding campaign treasuries "will be an easier task for Sen. Obama, whose $32 million January haul set a monthly record for a Democratic presidential primary with more than one candidate. The windfall of support came from 170,000 new donors, according to the campaign."

"Sen. Obama also has more small-dollar donors than Sen Clinton does...A greater portion of Sen Clinton's donors have already hit the $2,300 individual maximum allowed under the law."




And let's look at the current spin also. All of sudden, Clinton's campaign claims to be the insurgents against Obama, the Establishment candidate. Sorry, that won't fly.

Why do you suppose the calendar was front-loaded in the first place? So that Hillary's coronation would happen early.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the coronation. Might have something to do with people annoyed at her for--still--refusing to admit she was wrong in voting to authorize Bush's Iraq war. But there's been a lot since to add to that.

However, whose campaign, in state after state, lined up endorsements long ago--and thereby got off to a head start in "superdelegates"? Clue: NY Senator.

Who claimed, in SC to have the strongest machine in the state--just a few weeks before that machine was pulverized?   Same answer.

Etc.

And you may want to save your tears--according to the WSJ today, Team Clinton--Hillary and Bill--have jointly held funds totalling between "$ 10 million and $50 million, according to a June financial disclosure form."

Somehow, I don't think Obama's net worth is quite in the same range.

Also, the canard about Hillary working for less-privileged people, in contrast to Obama, needs some attention.   (In fact it bears a strong resemblance to a smear.) He was a community organizer and turned down any number of lucrative offers--after Harvard Law-- to work for the underprivileged .

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:54 PM

One more thing.

Hillary joined--and stayed with, for many years--the Rose law firm in Arkansas. This firm has been called "the ultimate establishment law firm". Clients included WalMart , Tyson Foods, etc.

Coming out of Harvard Law, Obama conducted a voter registration drive, then joined a firm where he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.

So who represented the Establishment?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:58 PM

Relax Ron. I have absolutely nothing invested in this. I'm only stating my observations.
It is okay to disagree though.
Right?
I mean if it is all just supposed to be an Obama love in, say so but I thought it was some kind of political debate where opposing views were actually a valued part of the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: bankley
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:36 AM

Little Hawk.... Kim Campbell was a Progressive Conservative who became Canada's 19th PM after replacing head honcho Brian Mulroney. She did's last long , thus earning the nickname Kim Crumble.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:55 AM

I'll see your Rupert rag Ron, and raise you a Newsweek nut job.

You weren't around these parts in 2004, were you Jim Lad? The Mudcat True Blue are just getting started. There is a whole cast of them, and every time someone drops an observation that rocks their worldview about their brand name, they go ballistic. Things are really tame now. But come the general, I predict they will ban me once again (it's a fairly routine exercise with the mods and me on this site), because expressing an opinion that differs from the Mudcat conventional opinion isn't well tolerated around these parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:37 AM

bankley - Yeah, that's right. Did I say she was a "Liberal"? LOL! I'm just getting old, that's all, my concentration is slipping. I know darned well she was a Conservative. I think she got a kind of raw deal. She took the heat for Mulroney after he was gone.

GG - Yeah, it's standard emotional feedback you are generating...

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

Well if you saw Kim's portrait you could be excused for thinking her "Liberal". Her anti gun status eg. did polarize the voters though.

GG: Yup. I won't stick around for too much nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM

LOL You're taking her bait whole. I have now lost the last vestige of confusion as to whether UKers amd Canadians are, ipso facto, better informed and make smarter conclusions than USers.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:16 PM

Ah. But what about the French, Ebbie? Or the Trinidad and Tobagoites? ("Trinnies")

If I was in the USA, I'd be pulling for Obama now...seeing that Kucinich and Edwards are out. Happy? If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I would vote for Hillary Clinton over any Republican. If neither Obama nor Clinton got the nomination...assuming they both died or got abducted by space aliens between now and the Democratic Convention...then....well, I'd have to see who they picked in their place, I guess. And I'd still probably vote for whoever that was, rather than for any Republican candidate. I'd vote for Chongo over the Republicans.

Having had 8 years of Tweedledum in the White House, I would definitely opt for Tweedledee at this point. ANY Tweedledee! Who wouldn't? That's the common viewpoint from outside the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:24 PM

Unfortunately, though, the Democratic Party is just as corrupt as the Republican Party, and maybe even moreso....but...probably not as insane. I'll go for corruption accompanied by relative sanity over corruption accompanied by insanity any day of the week, believe me. ;-) It's less dangerous.

I think a lot of the Republicans actually believe their War on Terror rhetoric. That makes them dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

There is no corruption in politics beyond that which we, the people, allow.

I dream lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:31 PM

Little Hawk, I wasn't talking about a candidate but about a much closer female.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:34 PM

Yeah, you were referring to the Guest poster, weren't you? That's what I assumed.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM

KIRO 7 News actually put a positive spin on Hillary's Seattle visit last night.
Same with the other two candidates who are there.
Nice to see a news media not get caught up in the flavour of the day and actually doing their jobs.
Damn shame about Edwards though.
Why do some of the States get to decide for the rest?
Serious question.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM

Money, Jim. Money. And connections.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM

Must be disconcerting for the later states though.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:41 PM

Oprah says she is getting pretty fed up with you too... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM

Yeah, I'm already sick and tired of the Obamarama Express and Oprah Girlfriends Club pulling the race card every time somebody challenges Obama/Oprah. And it's only February. Hope you are all ready for eight months of racial guilt tripping whitey, while Obama ignores everyone but his own and all those well educated, rich white folks.

They don't seem to play well with others, do they? It is The World According to Obama and the World According to Oprah with those two. Like I said, there is a real defensive arrogance there that is as disturbing as McCain's militarism and closet misogynist social agenda.

All I can say is, with retail politics, you get what you pay for.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:39 AM

Now, GG... Settle down... I think that, considering our history, that what we collectively are going thru in regards to Obama is healthy... And understandable...

Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't see race but it isn't a perfect world... We do still do see race... As well as gender... We have all grown up in an environment where race and gender do matter... Maybe it because of our history of blatent discrimination that it now matters...

And I'm sure that as uncomfortable it makes you, it makes many black people uncomfortable, as well... What we collectively are facing isn't a black thing... It's not a white thing... It's perhaps the the bumps that are natural as America tries it best to land Dr. King's dream... Were we don't see race...

I think it would be impossible to land that dream without the bumps... Dr. King said it wouldn't be easy... And it isn't...

So, just relax, GG, and enjoy what one day might be looked upon when America looked at itself, didn't like what it saw and made a major course correction in order to live more peacefully in a modern world... And when I speak of peace I don't mean just with other nations but with itself...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:01 PM

Good to know, Jim and GG, that you're just posting to kill time-- you actually don't believe a word of what you yourselves say.

We'll note that for the future.

It is too bad that you have nothing better to do--and don't believe in doing any research before you sound off.

It's really not that difficult.

And I'm so sorry, GG, that you don't like my citing the WSJ. It may be a Rupert rag at some point in the future, but so far it appears they still let the reporters write it as they see it--and I'll put their articles--as opposed to their editorials, as I've noted earlier-- up against any other source in the world for accuracy.

It would be interesting to know what you prefer as sources for accurate reporting.

Please don't be shy.


It's also noteworthy that, despite your dislike of my source, you have provided precisely zero evidence that my facts are incorrect.

Do you perhaps not believe that Bill and Hillary have joint net worth of $10 million to $50 million?

Or that Hillary did not join the Rose law firm?   While Obama represented voting rights cases and otherwise helped the underprivileged--as his regular job--not just "charity"?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:45 PM

It's inevitable that the electorate would someday be confronted with issues around possibly having a Black president...or someday having a female president. Why bitch about it now? It has to happen sometime. And when it does, people will naturally play all the usual cards, won't they? They can't help themselves.

Just wait and see the incredible ruckus that gets raised when Chongo's dreams are finally realized and a chimp or a bonobo has a serious shot at the Oval Office!

Then, GG, the shit is really going to hit the fan. I hope you live to see it. I hope Ron Davies does too. ;-)

(And the quasi-chimp we have NOW in the Oval Office doesn't count, so don't even bring that up, okay? It really ticks Chongo off when people do that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM

I just have two questions...what is it Obama is going to change, how is he going to do it, who will do it with him ? Why do people dislike Hillary Clinton, she seems to really want to do someting about health care. That in itself would give her my vote. Thirdly, sorry, I did only mean to ask two, Is Obama turning into a mere celebrity ? I hope not, but I do get the feeling that he is more flash than substance. Am I wrong or have I missed something ?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Jim Lad
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:59 PM

Hard to believe that Obama & Hillary are both in the same camp.
With the Democrats so divided, the Republicans are a shoe in.
The American media really does choose the successful candidates and ultimately, the President.
Over and over and over again.
Sorry that any opinion other than your own is viewed as being somehow, born of ignorance.
How can we ever learn from others if that is to be our stand?
I wish you the very best of luck with the next administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:06 PM

"The American media really does choose the successful candidates and ultimately, the President."

               The key, of course, is to find out which is the corporate candidate, and vote for him/her. That way you'll be sure to be on the winning side.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

Of course the media chooses the successful candidates. That's how it works. The media's decision of whether or not to cover a story and HOW to cover it is always the crucial matter in moulding public opinion, and the people who own and run the media know that.

That's why Dennis Kucinich got as little national coverage as he did, and its why he got shut out of the last few Democratic debates. He was very dangerous to the status quo.

It's why the Cleveland corporate-owned media are now trying to get him voted out of the House of Representatives.

Now the media, if they chose to, could easily have made it possible for the entire American public to be acutely aware of Kucinich's policies and the platform he was offering. They could tell Americans the truth about how bad their health system is in regards to much of the rest of the developed world. They could tell them that socialism is not a bad word. They could do a lot of stuff.

But they're not going to.

That's because the few rich people who own the major media outlets in the USA all have a vested interest in maintaining things just the way they are in the USA....that way they and their friends in the health insurance industry and the military-industrial complex can keep making big profits, correct? And that's what it's all about.

So the name of the game is to keep people ignorant, keep them in the dark, and keep them distracted with all kinds of superficial stuff like the color of a man's skin or the gender issue or the fact that a man was once a "war hero" (as if any of those have ANYTHING to do with being a good president!).

You know what a "war hero" is? It's someone who was a soldier, and he ended up in a really bad spot...and he behaved as soldiers usually do under those circumstances, which is to say, he did the very best he could in a totally awful situation...and he survived.

So now he's a "war hero". Go figure. No one ever asks to be a war hero, but it can happen to anyone if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's nothing that should be used afterward to promote a political campaign, because it has nothing really to do with being in political office and handling those kind of responsibilities properly.

But people fall for that sort of emotionally charged stuff, so the media and the political parties naturally use it for all it's worth. They did the same thing in ancient Greece and Rome. Little has changed in that respect, except that in those days the political leaders often led an army personally when it went into battle...so being a "war hero" carried a good deal more weight then, I'd say. Still...it in no way guaranteed that a man would be a good bureaucrat or peacetime leader! ;-) He who can win pitched battles on the field of war is not necessarily he who can run a civil government wisely or well. Those job qualifications are very different.

Lincoln was not a soldier. He was a lawyer. Still, he managed to lead the North effectively in the Civil War, didn't he? Grant WAS a war hero...and he was also a dreadfully incompetent president. Being a war hero has nothing to do with being a good president.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:28 PM

Bobert, I think the more salient thing to be looking at this time around, is Malcolm X's speech known as the "Bullet or the Ballot" speech.

You might want to check it out. It is on the list of 100 Greatest American Speeches over at americanrhetoric.com

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:13 PM

I know what Malcolm's was sayin'... I was a tad on the young side, thought my mom was a civil rights activist, in '64 but I started reading Malcolm in '67...

What I read I appreciated for what he was sayin' with my6 '67 mindset...

Okay, let me tell you a little story...

Two night ago I was invited to a "voluteer's appreciation supper" by the local "Main Street" program and started talkin' with this woman and next thing ya' know we were at some of the same demonsration in '69 and '70 in Richmond, Va... Well, I still posess most of the original "Richmond Chroncile's", which was Richmonds radical free press rag and I so drug out an old issue of a block party that turned into a riot and which me and a alot of others turned into a community orgainzing event and created sometyhing called the Grove Avenue Republic...

So, I found the issue that was printed after the riot to make a copy for this lady when I noticed there was a long lorgotten letter I wrote to the newspaper... Man, geeze of pete, it was absolutely radical... And I remembered all the points I brought up and all those points were well taken and points that were relevant to 1969... It was signed:

Black power to black people
Yellow power to yellow people
Red power to red people
Bullsh*t power to all bullsh*ters
& all Power to the people

If you'd like a copy of the entire letter I can get it to you... It is "dated" but nothin' I am ashamed of havin' written...

What I am saying here is that we were all terribly radicalized... Ok, not that it was terrible becuase all of us had the similar visions for Ameri(k)a... But we were very radicalized...

Malcolm warned us that the white establishment might try sending in black man, just as the overseers on the plantations (my paraphrasing of what Mailcolm was saying) to colonialize the Negro in the name of black power... Yeah, I realize that these aren't excatly his words but I think we can agree that was the essence of his warnings...

It is no secret that Malcolm thought Dr. King got too much attention and, though Malcolm didn't say it directly, I think it was evident that Malcolm was talkin' about someone much like King, if not Dr. King himself...

Now fast forward 44 years and here we have Barak Obama, who either wasn't born when Malcolm made that speech or was about to be born???

Yeah, I thought that Malcolm was a phrophet for his day but the thing about phrophets these days is that the shelf life ain't quite what it used to be in like, ohhhhh, 2000 years ago or ven a couple hundred...

Yes, it would be easy to take Malcolm's words and try to attach them to Obama, as some Uncle Tom "overseer porch Negro" but I don't hink that works any more... Too many things have changed.... When Obama was born the country hadn't seen it's last lynching... The Greensboro Mascaure hadn't happened yet... Yeah, he was kid but he wasn't touched by these things...

Okay, I accept Malcolm's warnings and they were true only for a short time... Important??? Hell, yes!!! But it seems that more change occured in the various months in '67. '68, '60' and '70 than have occured in any decade since... What that meant is that with these changes---since these times were a time of struggle-- we outgrew philosophies about as fast as we could internalize them...

So, yes, Malcolm's warnings of Uncle Tom comin' to Washington were in the words ot Jethro Tull:

"It was a new day yesterday
It's an old day now"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:23 PM

I listened to the whole Malcom X speech. Riveting! The man sure had a lot to say, and he had a very keen perception for how cynically the Democratic Party was courting the Black vote back then...promising much, but delivering very little.

Most of what he said was right on.

It's no surprise to me that he got assassinated only about a year later.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:31 PM

Yeah, he was right on, LH...

Don't make Obama no Uncle Tom "porch or house Negro"...

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:38 PM

No, I wouldn't necessarily think so, Bobert. I'm not sure how to evaluate Obama as yet, aside from the fact that he's an excellent speaker who presents himself very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:55 PM

Yeah, LH...

But ain't exactly what Malcolm warned US about either...

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:13 PM

yeah, I was just listening to Obama on whatever cable channel. I just think he sounds as phony as a $3 bill. As my president, he will be honest?

Sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:45 AM

HRC

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:26 AM

That's terrible. A true classic. What's the background?--sounded like a radio show. Obviously American.

Finally this thread has some significant news to report.

Viva You-Tube!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM

If it smells like calogne, leave it alone...

Nevermind...

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:59 AM

GG--

Still waiting for your corrections of my facts from the WSJ--since you don't like the source, I'm sure you must have better information. Be sure to tell us the exact source and date. Thanks, I knew you would.

And also eagerly awaiting your enlightenment of us as to the true sources of objective information--since you don't like mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:06 AM

Ron, maybe knowing this will help you, maybe it won't.

I am not playing your "prove to me with sources" game. Why? Because I am expressing my opinion, not engaging in a structured debate. This is a shoot the breeze forum, that is all I'm doing here, and if you wish to enjoy the banter, I suggest you chill.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:25 PM

Janet--

Oh, so that's why slander of Obama is fine?

Actually some of us think the election may possibly be significant--and actually believe what we say on Mudcat--though it's obvious, as I've noted, that you don't believe a word of what you yourself say.

I'm sorry-- I have an addiction to facts. I'll try for your sake to struggle against it--to try to fit in with the meaningless chit-chat you understand--but it's an uphill battle.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:54 PM

Plink! That Ron, is the sound of you dropping into my 'ignore' file. That's how it goes from here on out Ron. I'm done communicating with you and the entire True Blue choir. Not done posting here. Just done wading through your posts and responding in any way, shape, or form. You are an official non-entity in my world.

Byeeeeeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:59 PM

Somehow we'll struggle on, Janet.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:02 PM

"I was just listening to Obama on whatever cable channel. I just think he sounds as phony as a $3 bill."


                     It probably has to do with the reality of him always speaking in generalities. He doesn't commit to anything specific, and so far, it's worked well for him.

                     But getting back to the $3 bill. Remember when they were finally willing to admit that Ronald Reagan was dead, and all of those Republcan Congress people wanted to print a new $10 bill and put Ronald Reagan's picture on it? And then John Conyers stood up in the House and suggested they put him on the $3 bill, where the phony son-of-a-bitch belonged? I never heard anything more about it after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Greg B
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:44 PM

Just the title of this thread leads to a mental image with which
I'm not altogether prepared to deal...

(Notice she never wears a blue dress.)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: mg
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:35 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/10/clinton.campaign/index.html

This is a cnn report. They say her campaign managers did not tell her she was running out of money. How could she have such managers, how could she not have not somehow known at least ballpark where she was financially, and what does that say about ability to run a country? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:27 AM

It says to me, based on past precedencts, that she is typical presidential material, probably almost ideal for the position. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:04 AM

The same thing happened to McCain a few months back, didn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:38 PM

The idea that Hillary is getting short of money is absurd. In fact anybody who believes it is setting themselves up for the big surprise that--shock!---she actually has plenty of money, and support, and endorsements, to fight on to the convention, and possibly "win" some big states along the way--again a meaningless phrase--since the contest is not for states, but delegates--(and "superdelegates"--the latter of which she is still definitely in the lead, thanks to her huge head start). The real news is that so far all her plans have come to nothing--she thought that even if there had been competition up to then, at least "Super Tuesday" would finish off any opponent--since nobody else could possibly compete on such a huge-- nationwide-- scale.

The amazing news continues to be that despite her early diligent collection of funds and endorsements, and cranking up the Democratic machine in each state, in state after state Obama has built a grass-roots organization--amazingly quickly----(utilizing, among other resources, the Net)--an organization which has not only challenged but smashed Hillary's tradition-bound machines.

For me the best symbol of this is still South Carolina, where her manager said she had the most powerful machine in the state--and two weeks later that machine was completely shattered.

It seems that this has been the pattern, not everywhere, but enough places that the contest has been totally transformed from the planned coronation.

But no one should ever think she has financial problems.   Rig's attempted parallel fails. John McCain had real problems and his campaign did almost run out of gas: money. Hillary has no worries on that score.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:01 PM

The Democratic Leadership Council (aka the Super Delegates) want Hillary.

Dean wants to broker the convention early.

Obama is the new kid on the block and was not supposed to do so well.

Texas and Ohio in March will tell a lot about what comes next.

Tonight, the Chesapeake States.

Hillary is expected to get Hispanic support. (That could turn the tide)

I'm supporting neither but voting against McPain.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:07 PM

McPain! I like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:31 PM

Yes, just imagine how McPainful things could get in the next 4 years, and vote with extreme caution! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:52 PM

You guys. (And I don't mean, you guys, ha ha) Excepting Ron Davies at the moment, your spewings bring forcibly home just why this world is in such sad shape. I suspect that you, none of you, actually mean what you are promulgating. Or at least, I hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:03 PM

Huh? I don't follow you, Ebbie. ;-) What are we promulgating?

Look, the world has been in "sad shape" ever since anyone can remember. Read some political essays from Roman times. They were also bemoaning the sad shape the world was in back then. Same deal in the 1500s or any other century. It's a perennial problem. Society is always "going to hell in a handbasket", even though no one is quite sure what a handbasket is....

But when it comes to sheer nasty carping on a personal level, none of us can hold a candle to Ron Davies. We bow in mute submission and adoration before the dread power of his subtly barbed tongue.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:28 PM

Can you give us some references to back up those assertions, Little Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:09 PM

Take a look back over this thread, Little Hawk. In real life I don't sit still for this kind of gossip and piling on and it irritates me to see such venom and hatred masquerading as well-informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:26 PM

"But no one should ever think she has financial problems.   Rig's attempted parallel fails. John McCain had real problems and his campaign did almost run out of gas: money. Hillary has no worries on that score."


                      And we know this, how?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:32 PM

Well, I'm just not sure which particular excerpts you're objecting to, that's all, Ebbie. My main problem with McCain is his enthusiasm for the war, and for possible future wars. It doesn't give me confidence in what he might do if elected. He clearly believes the "War on Terror" stuff is gospel, and he imagines that the USA is engaged in a titanic struggle to save the world from Islamic fundamentalism. He calls the USA "the last best dream of humanity". Sheesh. I find all that extremely unrealistic on his part. It sure doesn't give much credit to a whole bunch of other democratic societies which have excellent national health programs and don't launch pre-emptive wars on people.

Islamic peoples would not presently be at odds with the USA at all if the USA had not been playing ruthless power games in their countries since the end of WWII.

As Ron Paul says, they don't hate us because we are free...they hate us because we're over there! That is the plain truth. McCain just doesn't get it.

The greatest promoter possible for aggressive Islamic fundamentalism (other than the Arab-Israeli fiasco) has been USA foreign and economic policy in the last 6 decades...all of it aimed at controlling markets and strategic resources that are in other people's countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:33 PM

Ebbie is on the war path against anyone who might agree with me.

And some mysterious member with a bone to pick with me is having lots of fun tonight impersonating.

I'm not pointing any fingers or anything, but the same suspect members keep showing up in all the threads.

Paranoia, coincidence. It don't matter to me. I just keep chuggin' along, doing my thing.

Too bad Ebbie, Amos, Charley, Don & Ron have such a hard time with that. BIG boo hoo to y'all.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:35 PM

Do a bit of research, Rig.

If you think she now has financial problems, what is your evidence? With specific source and date, of course. She had a temporary crunch, which, from my reading, is now over.

She has ample resources to defend her "firewall" in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

It may not be successful--especially since she now needs to more than win over Obama in those states--it needs to be a convincing win.

But it will not be a lack of cash that defeats her.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:52 PM

Gee, Janet--a long list of people who are always wrong--and you're always right. Just a tiny bit suspicious.

"The fault, dear Brutus...."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM

Forgive me for I have sinned... I haven't even opened this thread since shortly after I last posted. Impatience is my second middle name. So, I dunno if this has been said.... (and, BTW, it's a bit more complicated than the following, but, you'll get the idea)...

A relative of mine watches a TV program called "The View". Whoopi Goldberg is on this program (so, I may try to watch it sometime because she is aces in my books) and Whoopi said she would vote for the candidate that said they would cut off tax breaks and such to corporations that "outsource". Someone said Obama did and Whoopi said she was gonna vote for him. In other words, NOT because Obama is black but because of the outsourcing issue.

Apparently, yesterday, Whoopi said she got a call from Chelsea Clinton with the date, time and place that Hillary said it, before anyone else. Whoopi said she was changing her vote.

Is that accurate? Does it matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:34 PM

On this issue, it's a wash. The outsourcing quote was in fact one of the things Obama said at the University of Maryland rally I went to. I suspect it's in his stump speech. It's very possible that Hillary has also said it--maybe earlier, I don't know.

Therefore there is nothing to choose between the two on this issue.

So you go to other issues, where there is a difference. Like the Iraq war.

And the likelihood of actually getting your program through Congress.

On both, there is no comparison--Obama by a mile.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 04:04 PM

Yo... Ron.... cool... Obama all the way... so, I hope you can help me with my initial question...

*********************************************************************
From: gnu - PM , Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:11 PM

I saw an ad on the TV last night. Obama. Re universal health care. "Available" and "affordable".

Unless I missed something, or didn't understand him, or got that wrong... bullshit.... open-ended, backtrackable bullshit.

I hope I am wrong. (Not that it matters a whit to me. I have the scars to prove that Canada's Medicare system is pretty good.)

Can anyone explain away the (perceived on my part) bullshit?
******************************************************************

Ron.... thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:49 PM

Available: can't be denied because of pre-existing conditions or any other reason

Affordable: Negotiations with insurance firms to bring the price down, coupled with subsidies for anybody who can't afford it.

But as I understand, no forcing people who don't want it, for whatever reason, to buy it. No "mandate"--which is Hillary's approach--including garnisheeing of wages-- and is DOA in Congress for that reason. ( There's been rather strong feeling against taxation without representation in the US since about, what was it, 1773?)

More details on Obama's website, if you'd like.

Non-Americans--and Americans also, for that matter, should realize that Hillary's "universal health care", like Obama's plan, is in fact not a single-payer situation as in the UK or Canada. Insurance firms are very much in the picture in her scheme also.

There is not a huge amount of difference, aside from the politically disastrous "mandate".

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:55 PM

Don't most states mandate auto insurance now? That doesn't seem to have become disastrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:12 PM

Rig, you weren't paying attention. We've already pointed out that the difference is that people who don't want the coverage would be forced to pay anyway. Car insurance is a different situation since without it you are posing a danger to other drivers. If you don't get health insurance, the only person you would pose a danger to is yourself--you would have to pay entirely for your own care.

Your parallel fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:20 PM

That is certainly not true. If you are wandering around with TB, syphilis, mental illness etc., MRSA, you are defintiely a threat to others. And you are an economic burden, which I would hope that every adult would try to the best of their ability not to be. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM

You're picking extreme circumstances. We are talking about general care. Obviously TB etc. would have to be dealt with. But that is not the normal situation.

And I say again, an attempted "mandate" for health care would have no chance in Congress. That is the issue. Republicans and "red state" Democrats would kill it fast. Or do you not believe this?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:42 PM

It is considered rational, responsible, and normal in most democratic First World societies nowadays that everyone shares in the cost of national health care coverage (through their taxes) and everyone benefits by getting automatic health coverage when they need it.

Thus is it "mandated" for all citizens...except in the USA.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than paying your taxes to fight pre-emptive wars that cost so much money that they could both provide health care and eliminate poverty in most of the world!

You know who opposed that sort of health coverage being brought in in Canada when it was? The health insurance companies and the CMA (Canadian Medical Association) opposed it. The medical professional establishment opposed it. Guess why? They figured they might not make as much money with a national health care system in place. (God knows, they still make plenty of money!)

So much for their supposed interest in protecting the health of the public.

Unfortunately, it is those very people (or their counterparts) in the USA who are trying as hard as they can to keep the USA permanently in the dark ages when it comes to providing health coverage to its citizens on an equal and an affordable basis.

It's greed. Nothing more than that. Just plain old monetary greed, devoid of social responsibility. Will any American politician be found with the guts to really challenge that and the power to change it? If so, will the $ySStem roll over and submit to such a change or will they checkmate that politician?

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:59 PM

As of now, as I said, neither Hillary nor Obama offers a single-payer system. So there is not a huge difference between them.

At this point, Hillary's "mandate" will not fly. Obama's approach will.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:37 PM

"Car insurance is a different situation since without it you are posing a danger to other drivers. If you don't get health insurance, the only person you would pose a danger to is yourself--you would have to pay entirely for your own care."


               Not true, Ron. The only risk you pose to other drivers is not being able to pay damages. Otherwise not having insurance doesn't pose any greater risk to anyone else. That's why the issue of driver's licenses to illegals is so stupid.

               But if you choose not to carry health insurance, and end up in the emergency room from an accident, you are a burden on the same exact public that the uninsured motorist is.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:13 AM

No, Rig. You need to be able to trace the uninsured motorist and get judgment against him before his possible bankruptcy arises as an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: gnu
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:53 AM

Thanks again Ron. Very imformative. And thanks to others for the debate... very good stuff indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:54 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:55 AM

Bugger !!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 07:59 AM

"No, Rig. You need to be able to trace the uninsured motorist and get judgment against him before his possible bankruptcy arises as an issue."

                  Actually, depending where you are, you'd probably be better off to secure a judgement after his bankruptcy, to the extent that one can even file bankruptcy anymore.

                  The point is, if the government is not going to provide health insurance, and it is going to go through private carriers, it's important that everyone be covered. If not, you'll have everyone over the age of 50 demanding coverage, and a number of people in their twenties going without. That kind of skews the pool.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 09:48 AM

Over here you cannot bring proceedings against an undischarged bankrupt without the leave of the court which in practice is not given.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:45 PM

Richard - Yes that's a point. If you brought proceedings against a bankrupt before it was discharged here, I think it would just go into the estate, so it wouldn't do any good. You'd have to wait until after it was discharged.

                But in 2005, in order to protect the large banks, Congress made filing bankruptcy much harder. Now, unless you're really rich, or really poor, you're are apt to get pushed into a Chapter 13, which would require payments against the debts over time.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:47 PM

Driving is a privilege, not a right. That gives the state the right to establish pretty much whatever laws it wants regarding driving and vehicle ownership, including requiring insurance coverage. The flip side is that anyone who doesn't want to pay for auto insurance is perfectly free to take the bus. Those who choose not to avail themselves of the privilege don't have to pay for it.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. A state cannot charge anything for that right. "Poll taxes" were outlawed years ago, and recent court cases have ruled that states which require photo ID for voting must provide such IDs free of charge. Of course, that's not to say exercising rights carries no financial costs, but those costs are paid through taxes, which all governments have an undeniable right to levy.

Health care? Nobody seems to be able to decide whether it's a right or a privilege. If it's available only to those who are capable of paying, it's obviously a privilege. If it's available to anyone who needs it, free of out-of-pocket charge and financed through taxes, it's plainly a right. If everyone is required to pay for it by way of health insurance premiums, it's neither. A right is free of charge. A privilege carries the option of saying "No thanks." If it isn't free, and it isn't optional, it's extortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM

Driving was once a right too....until there got to be so damn many cars around (scaring the horses) that they had to regulate it! The same went for owning and firing guns, riding horses, owning a dog, wearing a sword, etc. They all used to be things you didn't need a damn license for.

Taking this as a general human trend, I predict that we will one day need a license to cough, sneeze, roll our eyes, use a knife and fork, wear shoes, and fart.

I can hardly wait. ;-) How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:59 PM

You got a license to use that emoticon?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 02:10 PM

Oh, shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 02:14 PM

You better come with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: pdq
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 02:29 PM

Has Little Hawk's poetic license expired?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 04:26 PM

..." If it isn't free, and it isn't optional, it's extortion...."



                   You mean like any other tax?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 05:49 PM

..." If it isn't free, and it isn't optional, it's extortion...."



                   You mean like any other tax?


No, that's precisely why I included the following in my second paragraph:

"...that's not to say exercising rights carries no financial costs, but those costs are paid through taxes, which all governments have an undeniable right to levy."

To return to the example of voting being a right, voting is far from free. It costs a lot of money to run an election, and each of us pays our share. But that money is paid to the government in the form of taxes, not in the form of a direct charge for the right to vote. And since taxes are based upon how much one earns (income tax), how much one spends (sales tax), or how much one owns (property tax), those with the most money pay more toward financing the election than those who are barely scraping by.

The problem with requiring that people buy health insurance is that a health insurance policy to cover a rich man or a poor man both cost about the same amount, but one can afford the expense much more easily than the other. If health care is going to be a right, it should be publicly financed so the expense of running the program is shared proportionally. Otherwise, just leave it as a privilege and allow those of us who can't afford health insurance to die in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 09:44 PM

BWL - While I think you are in favor of a government paid system, like other civilized countries have, the candidates seem to want to keep the insurance companies involved in the process. Personally, I would consider these companies to be leaches on public resources, but if they are going to be involved, and we want universal health care, then you would have to insist that every citizen participate, it seems to me.

                  If you look at some of the proposals that have been put forward by Democratic candidates, there are provisions for assistance to people without adequate resources. At least, that's the way I understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 10:03 PM

I think we will progress to single payer and leave insurance out, but this might be the best way to move towards it. Otherwise, the mess might be unbelieveable...I don't know if I would insist on full participation just for the outrage it would cause..but the same people would expect to get medical care as complained about paying for insurance up front, even at a greatly reduced price. Some youngsters especially will think they don't need it so why should they pay..there are gamblers out there..there are people who would rather put their money elsewhere because they know someone somewhere will foot the bill for them. So I do not obama-like assume that reducing it greatly will bring everyone in..but when you start out saying you will garnishee wages..you're in for a fight.

Start right now by flooding poorer parts of the country with public health nursing and keep on adding stuff. Have clinics here and there and do not allow people to misuse emergency rooms. Have a clinic in the same building or in the next block. That notion oh gee we have to close down the er because poor people use it to get their shots..for heavens sake..get a part-time nurse and put him/her in an office down the hall and divert those patients. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:24 PM

Of course, access is important, but however you do it, I think it is important to get everyone into the system, somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:09 PM

As Mary and I have pointed out, garnisheeing wages of those who don't want to participate is a recipe for disaster--and a good way to ensure that no program gets passed at all.

You would think Hillary would have learned something from her last attempt on this issue in the 1990's--but for all her "experience", she seems to have learned very little.

Obama has far better instincts for knowing how to approach the problem--such that you actually get some progress. As he says, insurance companies will have a seat at the table--they just won't be able to buy all the seats.

Hillary's confrontational attitude--on this and other issues-- is just what we don't need.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:40 PM

No matter how you cut it, health care will not work unless all citizens are included in the mix.
                   Dealing with non-citizens is a different kind of problem, but that could probably be handled as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:49 PM

Fine. I like apple pie too. That does not change the fact that garnisheeing wages is precisely the wrong way to approach the goal of universal health care. That is the way of somebody who is totally clueless at dealing with Congress.

Strange that that person is running for President. I wonder who would support such a disastrous candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 12:05 AM

Well, look at it this way, Ron. If nobody would support that kind of candidate (a "disastrous" one?) we wouldn't even be talking about her, would we? She wouldn't be running. It would be a total non-issue. What kind of person might it be that would support that candidate? Well, probably any one of about 10,000 different kinds of person. I realize you find it very hard to imagine any of them, but think how dull life would get if everyone out there met your expectations and thought as you do. ;-) There'd be nothing to argue about.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 01:01 AM

Scenario: As cold war tensions and military provcations by Russia increase, our President needs to give Putin a good talking to.

We've had George look into Putin's soul with predictable ignorance.
now...
Picture Hillary speaking powerfully to Putin.

Then picture Barak doing the same.




I feel that Putin would be more likely to believe Hillary and dismiss Barak as a rookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: mg
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:03 AM

Didn't you read Putin's putdown of Senator Clinton today or yesterday? She insulted him pretty seriously and he just paid her back. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:15 AM

mg - That seems to support what Donuel is saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM

Sorry, that just shows that cluelessness can be found on Mudcat also. "A good talking to" is not precisely the way to get Putin, a proud man, to concede on anything. That idea is faintly absurd, as anybody who thinks about it should realize. And exchanging insults is not actually very promising either. Look how well it works on Mudcat. If this is your argument in favor of Hillary, it's no mystery why she would be a disaster. And as somebody who's deathly afraid of being thought "weak", she might well behave this way. Good thing we probably will not have to find out.

There is not much leverage we have with Russia at this point. What we want to do is somehow try to lessen Europe's dependency on Russian natural resources--a trend which at this point is going the wrong way.

And actually encourage (and oversee, if possible) the continued disposal of Russian nuclear weapons, which Bush at one point stymied since his corporate sponsors, who would have been responsible for workers compensation, did not want to pay it. (I started a thread on this).

Bush has been the anti-TR: he speaks loudly....   And Mudcatters, amazingly enough, think that Hillary's continuation of this is just fine.

It's time to start thinking about relations with Russia. And bluster is not the answer. I don't claim to have the solution to this problem. But "a good talking to", it's safe to say, is just about the worst possible answer.

A good start would be rejecting Bush's go-it-alone attitude and trying to make common cause with other nations who are also uneasy at Putin's attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 08:06 PM

Teaming up with Russia to reject independance for Kosovo would be a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 08:57 PM

"military provocations by Russia"??? Say what?

It is the USA and the UK that have been provoking the world in the past few years with their military adventures, not Russia.

I think Putin might feel in talking to Obama that he was talking to a man of some honesty and idealism...a man looking to build bridges rather than burn them...therefore a man to whom he could speak with some hopes of actually being listened to fairly and constructively. This would probably aid in negotiations between Russia and the USA.

I think it will be a massive boost to the USA's good image in the world if Obama is elected. It will be a more moderate boost to the USA's good image if Hillary Clinton is elected...still it would definitely be seen positively.

The election of another Republican at this point will give the world the impression that the USA is virtually beyond hope.

Be that as it may, I fear that once in power the Democrats will continue the present war policy unabated. I hope I am mistaken. If they do, they will again squander the opportunity to build those international bridges of friendship that I was alluding to above.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 09:19 PM

LH - I meant to say joining with Russia over Kosovo would be a good idea.

                   And the way things are shaping up, I think there is a good chance we'll see another Republican president in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 04:28 PM

Well Rig, if you can drag yourself out of your cynical stupor enough to go to the polls in November to vote for Obama, it would be appreciated.

If you don't want McCain, it's the least you can do, it won't hurt you, and you can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 08:08 PM

It's vote by mail in Oregon, Ron, so even rain, sleet, gloom of night and all that stuff doesn't keep you from voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 08:19 PM

Rig, you say "And the way things are shaping up, I think there is a good chance we'll see another Republican president in November."

Is that your gut feeling or do you have reasons to think that? Would you elaborate?

I'm avoiding putting my fears into words.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 09:42 PM

Ebbie - I recall what happened in 2004, when it seemed like a credible Democratic candidate could have sleep walked into the oval office. And I hear people talking all the time about Obama in ways that the news media doesn't seem to.
                      At the end of the day, it's just a "gut feeling," I have no evidence to support it. But in 2004, I was amazed that we ended up with 4 more years of George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 07:58 PM

In 2004, it was impressive Kerry did as well as he did--and better than anyone else the Democrats could have put up. (If anybody cares to dispute this, evidence please.)

Aside from Cheney circuitriding, saying that here in....a dirty bomb could he exploded (implication--more likely under Kerry) and people being told that if homosexuals could marry, their own marriage could be in danger--(more propaganda, the only expertise of the Bush regime)-- there was one other, more serious problem. The Democrats' claim was that Iraq was Vietnam redux. Putting an Iraqi face on the government--Allawi--gave the lie to that allegation--and seemed to imply--at least til after the election--that Iraq was progressing.

Totally different situation now. Iraq not a burning issue for most voters. And many--including large numbers of independents and some Republicans--really enthusiastic about Obama's post-partisan approach. ( Though not in the least about Hillary.) Even planning to work with non-Democrats is a huge step forward from the partisan gridlock we've been enduring for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 07:59 PM

"be exploded"

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 09:41 PM

The ability of Kerry to run for public office outside of Mass. was demonstrated when he stuck his foot in his mouth about people who fail in the real world ending up in Iraq when this recent campaign first started.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 07:58 AM

Rig--

Wrong, (unsurprisingly).

You know as well as I do that that was a "joke" read wrong. And that it was after the campaign.

And you have yet to produce one iota of information that Dean (your suggestion) would have done any better. Sorry, the main issue in 2004 was national security. Anybody whose platform required that all the troops be withdrawn from Iraq immediately was out of step with the electorate--for the specific reason I cited---that the "Bush team" was able to convincingly state that Iraq was not Vietnam Part II.

If you care to respond, a bit of logic (not another item from Smears R Us) would be appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Tapped Out???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:53 AM

Ron - How could it be "after the campaign?" The campaign is still going on.