|
09 Mar 08 - 11:46 AM (#2283642) Subject: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Bobert Well??? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 11:54 AM (#2283644) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,HiLo of course not ? why do you ask ? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 11:57 AM (#2283646) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Leadbelly Don't thinks so, George W. Bush might be a monster. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 12:06 PM (#2283648) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: John MacKenzie She could be a Munster perhaps? But which one? G |
|
09 Mar 08 - 12:14 PM (#2283654) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Amos I think she has a side of her that has monstrous hues to it, but it is not her. Probably her dad. ;>) A |
|
09 Mar 08 - 12:50 PM (#2283670) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Rapparee Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know her well enough to answer. Ask Bill. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 12:54 PM (#2283673) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,jts Sure she is. ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qlenc7w3cM |
|
09 Mar 08 - 12:57 PM (#2283676) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Beer What's a Monster? Beer (adrien) |
|
09 Mar 08 - 12:59 PM (#2283677) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: pdq Hillzilla? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM (#2283689) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Janie Nope. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 01:47 PM (#2283707) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: mg Yes. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 01:51 PM (#2283709) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Terp Someone mentioned this quote from Bette Davis on another thread: When a man gives his opinion he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion she's a bitch. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 01:55 PM (#2283715) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think that calling a political rival "a monster" would be considered particularly offensive in England. At any rate I don't think it has ever been ruled as "unparliamentary language". |
|
09 Mar 08 - 02:19 PM (#2283741) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Rabbi-Sol Go to www.braunsteinspeaks.com and see his op ed piece on this entitled "The Hillary Monster". It is the second post down from the top. SOL |
|
09 Mar 08 - 03:18 PM (#2283778) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,VOICE OF TRUTH The woman who said this was an advisor to Obama, and while I am glad to see she was forced to resign, it indicates to me that Obama may have some nasty words that he lets his underlings disseminate for him. As I have mentioned, I know that Obama will lose the general election if he wins the primary. Perhaps more Dem voters are catching on now that they have seen the nether side of Obama. I'm not saying HE is the male equalivant of 'bitch' - just that his flimflamming on the Canadian question, his recent sullenness in being questioned by the press, and this latest gaffe indicates that his words can be as manipulative, insincere and underhanded as any of the politicians he espouses to be better than. It is notable that Clinton has won several key states this past week, and may be able to reclaim the Florida vote.The only hope for a more compassionate Presidency lies with Hillary, and while her opponents and misogynistic rivals throw mud, Obama may be slipping sliding on the same. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 03:22 PM (#2283785) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Amos VOT: I think, with all due respect, that you are deluded about the relative compassion levels of Hillary and Barack. As for claiming that the aide's words reflect on Obama, that's just hyper-associative leaping; it has no merit, IMHO. And "knowing" who will win the general election is a wonderful talent, and I am sure you wlll be able to clean up on it, unless, of course, your "knowing" is just misguided emotion, which is possible also. A |
|
09 Mar 08 - 03:45 PM (#2283813) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: McGrath of Harlow Seriously though - is "monster" really seen as a terrible insult in American politics? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 03:57 PM (#2283822) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Peace MONSTER? Hell, thought that was mobster. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 04:04 PM (#2283824) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Ebbie Monster Frankenstein, abnormality, barbarian, beast, behemoth, bogeyman, brute, centaur, colossus, demon, devil, dragon, fiend, freak, giant, hellcat, hellhound, hellion, horror, leviathan, little devil, lusus naturae, mammoth, miscreation, monstrosity, mutant, ogre, phoenix, savage, titan, villain, whale savage beast, bigot, boor, brute, cannibal, clod, hooligan, hun, ignoramus, lout, monster, philistine, rascal, ruffian, troglodyte, vandal, yahoo barbarian animal, beast, cannibal, creature, critter*, degenerate, devil, fiend, lout, monster, ogre, ruffian, sadist, savage, scamp, swine evil Satan, archfiend, beast, brute, devil, evil spirit, fiend, goblin, hellion, imp, incubus, little devil*, malignant spirit, monster, rascal, rogue, vampire, villain, windigo Nah, McGrath. I can't believe anyone would be offended. lol |
|
09 Mar 08 - 04:06 PM (#2283825) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Peace Ebbie's post reads lots like most of the political threads, and they don't bother anyone. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 04:07 PM (#2283826) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Ebbie gasp! lol |
|
09 Mar 08 - 04:45 PM (#2283853) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,dianavan First of all, she was an unpaid advisor. She resigned. No loss to Obama. He can pick her up again if he wins the election. I wouldn't consider it an insult. Hillary's political machinery is monstrous. In context, I'd say she was describing what they were up against. Its media-hype. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM (#2283858) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: McGrath of Harlow Every parent I know refers to their children as "monsters" , generally as a kind of term of endearment. "Big beast" is a very flattering term in political circles in England. Ay politician described as such in the media knows they've made it. "Monster" would tend to be seen in similar terms,; flattering, even if hostile. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 05:20 PM (#2283886) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: kendall Context is everything. As used by that lady it is an insult because it was meant to be. I don't know about anyone else, but when someone posts a long web address with no blue link, I just don't bother to do all that typing just to see what it says. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 05:37 PM (#2283904) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Richard Bridge Cut and paste? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM (#2283909) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Richard Bridge Been there, read it. Reminded of Alfred E Neumann. "Like whaddzzz he mean?" |
|
09 Mar 08 - 06:13 PM (#2283931) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest This 'monster' quote is from Samantha Powers, Pulitzer Prize winner, Harvard professor, Obama advisor. She was shooting her mouth off in Scotland, and put her foot in it. Both Obama and Clinton are liars, so what else is new? They are blindly ambitious, and will say whatever they think we want to hear, in order to get elected. Ditto their campaign staff surrogates. They are both on the take from the wealthy elite & their corporations, and trying to steal votes from the poor under the pretence that they're protecting them from each other. They lie about the war, they lie about health care & are in the industry pockets of insurance & pharmaceutical companies. Which is why neither of them will come out in support of single payer Medicare for all, or with a timeline to get us out of Iraq. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as them both being crooked crooks, taking money from crookeder crooks. Welcome to the farce known as the US presidential election. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 06:29 PM (#2283938) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest Here is a snip of what Maureen Dowd had to say about it all in today's NYT: "Obama's multiculturalism is a selling point with many Democrats. But his impassioned egghead advisers have made his campaign seem not only out of his control, but effete and vaguely foreign — the same unflattering light that doomed Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. First, his University of Chicago economics adviser, Austan Goolsbee, took it upon himself to reassure Canadian officials that Obama was hard on Nafta only to court the economic populist vote. In a meeting in Chicago, a memo from the Canadian consulate noted, "Goolsbee said he has always been impressed with Canada, sharing his experiences which have included trips to Montreal and Toronto as part of the Yale debate team and visits to Vancouver with his wife." While we've seen book tours that set up a presidential run, we've never seen one that tore one down. That is, until Samantha Power — the Dublin-born Harvard expert on human rights who drily refers to herself as "genocide chick" — hit London to promote her new book. Power, a foreign policy adviser to Obama, told The Scotsman that Hillary was "a monster" and the BBC that Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan was merely a "best-case scenario." (She's now resigned.) Ma Clinton pounced, telling reporters in Mississippi, "He keeps telling people one thing, while his campaign tells people abroad something else." |
|
09 Mar 08 - 06:29 PM (#2283939) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: freightdawg The advisor in question was speaking OFF THE RECORD in an interview. The reporter, sensing a chance to make political hay, quoted her anyway. Wolfson, Hillary's chief spokesman, has been comparing Obama to Kenneth Starr (the worst Democratic epithet you can imagine) for days now and no one complains. When asked about it Hillary just said "I won't respond to that question." Calling Clinton a monster is the kindest thing a lot of people could say about her. She's Richard Nixon in a bra and panties. She is twice as vindictive as her husband with half of the people skills to hide it. Just wait till she really turns negative to steal the nomination away from Obama. Freightdawg |
|
09 Mar 08 - 07:08 PM (#2283961) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest NO, she was NOT speaking off the record. After she blurted to the reporter who was interviewing her the monster quote--she said (realizing her gaffe immediately) 'that's off the record'. In other words, she tried to yank it off the record the minute she said it. But Homey don't play dat tune. The much more serious gaffe on Powers' part wasn't calling Clinton a monster (that was just plain stupid, and her Harvard Highness knows it, as she is now all mea culpa, mea culpa mama). No, the far bigger gaffe, and the one she had to resign over, was her remark about Obama's Iraq policy. It doesn't matter what other people call Clinton, but it very much matters what Obama's staff speaking to the press call her. Especially when Obama claims to have seen the light, and be shining it down upon this dirty game called politics. The high road ain't a two way or four way. It's a one way. And Obama's surrogates are no different than Clinton's. They are all a bunch of sleeze bags, lying and talking out of both sides of their forked tongues. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 08:12 PM (#2283985) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Ron Davies No, she's not a "monster", just one of the slimier politicians to grace the political scene in a while. With able assistance by her delightful spouse. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 09:24 PM (#2284015) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Don Firth Just a simple question to those who say things like "I would never vote for Hillary in a million years!!" If, in November, it boils down to a choice between Hillary and McCain--who ya gonna vote for? Another Republican administration? Well, whoopee!! Don Firth P. S. Sure. I don't like it either. But I think we need to think about it. Seriously! 'Cause that may very well be the choice. P. S. Well, of course there's always, always, always Nader. . . . |
|
09 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM (#2284033) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest Actually Don, there won't always be Nader. His voice will be silent soon enough. I'm quite certain this is the last campaign he has in him. So will you be gleeful when his voice is finally gone? Who will speak so eloquently for our democracy and our interests then? Obama? Clinton? McCain? I can't understand why, unless you trust Obama and Clinton to speak truth to power. Their sole ambition--both of them--is to seek and acquire the power and status of being the figurehead for the ruling elite. dianavan, I think you are missing a very important piece here. Obama has the biggest campaign organization and war chest in history. So I find it odd that you, like so many keep casting him as David to Clinton as Goliath. It's been awhile now since their roles in the contest reversed. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 09:53 PM (#2284038) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,mg We can write in Obama. We can write in Ron Paul or Bloomberg or whoever. I absolutely will not vote for her as president, and probably not if Obama (God help him) is forced to have her as VP, which he would never do voluntarily I am sure. mg |
|
09 Mar 08 - 10:38 PM (#2284049) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Rabbi-Sol If Obama wins the nomination his running mate will be John Edwards. If Hillary wins, her running mate will be Bill Richardson, a long time Clinton confidant and cronie. McCain will suprise everyone. His running mate will be Joe Lieberman. SOL |
|
09 Mar 08 - 10:42 PM (#2284053) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Big Mick Pretty astute, friend Sol, and quite possible. Best to the formidable Fay. Mick |
|
09 Mar 08 - 10:58 PM (#2284057) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Don Firth In your effort to pull the teeth of the question I asked, GiGi, you are avoiding the question entirely. Suppose Nader wasn't in it at all. Who, then, would you vote for? Still anyone but Hillary? Don Firth P. S. I'm not campaigning for Hillary. I'm just asking. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 11:00 PM (#2284059) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: pdq Will McCain really choose Joe Lieberman??? read about it here |
|
09 Mar 08 - 11:50 PM (#2284069) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest I've answered that many times, Don. Ad nauseum. If Nader isnt on my ballot, I won't vote for president. Period. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 11:53 PM (#2284071) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest And Don, you have consistently failed to explain how having Ralph Nader involved in the horse races of the past 20 years has harmed our democracy? And please, spare us the tired old 2000 whine. Seriously. What has Ralph Nader done to harm our democracy? OTOH, what have Al Gore, John Kerry, the Clintons, and Obama done to it? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 11:54 PM (#2284072) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Riginslinger I would think a McCain Lieberman ticket would be dead on arrival. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 12:06 AM (#2284075) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Don Firth Did I say that he'd done anything to harm our democracy? No, never did. In your desparation, GiGi, you're getting a bit irrational. And making silly assumptions about what other people believe. Is it not permitted to ask questions, then? Tsk, tsk! Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 08 - 12:14 AM (#2284079) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: dick greenhaus I dunno about monstrosity, but I'm bemused by Ms. Clinton's latest attempt to show that folks who vote in smaller states' primaries should have less of a vote than those who vote in larger states. I thought that the varying apportionment of delegates took care of that, but apparently she doesn't think so. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 12:38 AM (#2284092) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Riginslinger Actually, it's the people who vote in caucuses who have more of a vote. The elites who can get there vote, while the folks who are supporting the elites are at work. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:42 AM (#2284120) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Slag Why? Is she growling??? ALL politicians are monsters. It takes a monster to tough your way through such an ordeal. It takes a bizarre and grandiose ego to even consider being the head of a nation, let alone THIS nation. And to WANT this job? Why? Who really needs the grief? What is it they are REALLY getting out of it? Not the money. Not rest and relaxation! Is it a genuine concern for the people they are supposed to be representing? Is it to defend this country against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic? Perhaps it is to preserve the US Constitution? You know, have it's hull scraped and painted once a year. Maybe it's so they can pardon the crooks who helped them reach that high office. Maybe it's that they really believe in another form of government and want to subvert this nation. Revenge? Whatever the motivation I predict that it will be well hidden and virtually undecernable by the populace. After all, they have their own agendas. More than once I have heard interviewees say things like "I want to vote for a woman" or " I think a black person should be in the White House". That is some qualification! Deep issues indeed. Is Hillary a "monster"? Well, yes! Of course! What has that got to do with anything??? |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:52 AM (#2284122) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Jim Lad Since the post Texas retreat, I've heard her strategists call her "Slippery", "Secretive" "Happy playing in the gutter" and various other things. Looks to me like they brought out a whole new lexicon. People however, do not seem to make the connection between "Strategist" & "Strategy". Mind you, her strategists could be saying the same stuff and I just haven't noticed but I don't think so. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 09:00 AM (#2284230) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest Well Don, your antipathy towards Nader is well known here. So I am wondering what exactly Nader has done to deserve such scorn and derision from you. But of course, you just come back with the same old shit: he was the 2000 spoiler, he shouldn't run as a candidate because he hurts the Democratic party candidate, blah blah blah. What you have never been able to answer is why a third party or independent candidate should care what they do to the chances of the corporate duopoly candidatees. I mean, besides that you don't like the outcome when your boy doesn't win. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 01:41 PM (#2284459) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: McGrath of Harlow I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 would actually have preferred Gore as president to Bush. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 01:51 PM (#2284472) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Don Firth GiGi, you're so stuck in your own mind-set and so far off the mark about what I think that it verges on the pathetic. You're primary method of arguing against someone who disagrees with something you say is to accuse them of irrational hatred. You're much more suited to shouting matches than you are to productive discussion, so I find it pointless to try to argue with you. As to your last paragraph, I have answered that question for you (and others) repeatedly. It's just that, no matter how accurate my answer obviously is, you just don't like it. When it comes to saying the same old thing over and over and over and over—you are the champ! Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 08 - 05:24 PM (#2284699) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Don Firth I don't like the situation any more than you do, GiGi. I don't like the fact that Dennis Kucinich, my candidate of choice, was cut out of the debates and generally shoved into the corner and ignored. He eventually felt it necessary to withdraw and go home to campaign for re-election as senator if he was to have any voice in the government at all. I respect him for having the sense to keep on fighting, even if he wasn't able to do it the way he really wanted to. I am plenty familiar with Nader the consumer advocate, Nader the politician, and Nader the man. He has some good things going for him. But he's no Dennis Kucinich. "If Nader isnt on my ballot, I won't vote for president. Period." That's really mature, there, GiGi. Rather than stain your spotless integrity, you would rather just crawl under your bed and give up entirely. I guess it's going to take people such as myself and a number of others here, with a grasp of the real world and a willingness to try to make the best of a less than ideal situation, to save your sorry rump for you. Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 08 - 06:31 PM (#2284778) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Greg F. We can write in Obama. We can write in Ron Paul or Bloomberg or whoever. There's real genius in that! Seriously. What has Ralph Nader done to harm our democracy? Absolutely nothing- in fact he's done a great deal of good throughout his life & the questions he raises in his campaigns need to be raised. The real positive harm is done by the cretins who keep pissing their votes away by voting for him! |
|
10 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM (#2284922) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest I voted for Nader, McGrath. I would not have preferred Gore over Bush. Or Bush over Gore. I prefer the system collapse. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM (#2284925) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest And at least I vote. I could join the majority of Americans and not bother, because I know it is a pointless, futile exercise that has nothing to do with changing a corrupt political system that is gutting the nation. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 11:36 PM (#2285017) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Little Hawk Hear, hear, GG! I understand your feelings on that perfectly. You are so right about the duopoly gutting the nation. And, however...I also understand the feelings of those who would vote for Gore or Obama or Hillary Clinton...or whoever they choose to vote for. What I don't understand is the total lack of respect and goodwill you have and express for each other mutually. It is possible, after all, to disagree with someone's political views and yet not descend to the level of holding them in utter contempt and hatred. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 12:57 AM (#2285045) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,dianavan "So I find it odd that you, like so many keep casting him as David to Clinton as Goliath." I don't remember casting either of them as Biblical characters but while it is true that Obama has gained alot of support, he is still the new kid on the block compared to Hillary. Washington D.C. has been her turf for a very long time. In that way, she does enjoy an advantage. She is very experienced and has probably seen every dirty trick in the book. From Obama's perspective (or from his campaign headquarters) she is a monster with tentacles that reach far and wide. ...or she is the monster they are presently battling. No big deal. "...a memo from the Canadian consulate noted, "Goolsbee said he has always been impressed with Canada, sharing his experiences which have included trips to Montreal and Toronto as part of the Yale debate team and visits to Vancouver with his wife." Soooooooo? This is hardly newsworthy. Power, a foreign policy adviser to Obama, told The Scotsman that Hillary was "a monster" and the BBC that Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan was merely a "best-case scenario." Where did the BBC quote come from? Its the first I have heard it. I guess I've missed something. Actually, I'd probably vote for Hillary (this week) for just that reason. She can go head to head with McCain. I'm not sure if Obama can. His people just do not have the experience and the sophistication to tackle a monster like Hillary. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 01:01 AM (#2285048) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Slag Well Don, that's democracy for you. Or maybe, that's politics for you! I can't really figure out which but, yeah, Dennis had to go home. Re Nader, I wish him long life because as the years go by and the evidence for some kind of an ecological disaster keeps mounting we are ALL going to find out how right he is. Kinda scary. A few years ago I could have never conceived of myself saying that. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 01:31 AM (#2285067) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: mg I don't disagree with Hillary's views in general. I think she is a very dangerous person to have as president. I fear for the country. But her proposals sound good to me. It is not contempt I feel but fear and dread. mg |
|
11 Mar 08 - 08:31 AM (#2285226) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest Obama may be the new kid, but he hasn't been the underdog since voting started, so I find it odd when people attempt to put him in that light. Little Hawk, to understand the level of contempt that some have for Nader in this forum doesn't even come close to comparing how it was in 3D life for those of us who supported Nader in 2000 and especially 2004. We were treated as political pariahs, and on more than one occasion, I had people who came knocking on MY door canvassing, screaming in my face when I told them politely 'no thank you, I'm voting for Nader'. I've never seen anything like it in all my years. It was pretty damn shocking, and it made me realize how easy it was for the Nazis and fascists to take over Europe. Same sort of political and social intimidation. I went through it to a lesser extent this year, especially at work when I told my work colleagues, who expect EVERYONE to be a Democrat (St Paul is a big Democrat town), that because I am a political independent, I don't caucus for either corporate party. Most told me I had to. Or that I should just do it so I could choose between Clinton and Obama. It's pretty damn scary, how much like sheep the American electorate already is, and well brainwashed into believing that they must participate in the corporate duopoly's 'lesser of two evil' strategy that suppresses both voter turnout AND the power of independent candidates and third parties. People can't even conceive of why someone would 'waste their vote' to participate in ANY political activies outside the duopoly system. So, the answer as to why they behave the way they do is because that is how they have been programmed to think, including a few of the most vocal Nader haters here. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 08:55 AM (#2285237) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest Who also happen to be the most vocal Bush haters, Republican haters--they have just lost it since Bush won under dubious circumstances in 2000. Except, they rarely blame the people who shoulder most the responsibility for it--the Reagan/Bush I & Clinton appointed Supreme Court (again, the corporate duopoly's Supreme Court), and Gore & the Democratic party Beltway establishment, who keeps dissing the party's leftist grassroots activists, to cater to the corporate right wing of the party. Now, they are all vicious over which corporate right wing candidate is best--Clinton or Obama. These folks are the people who mirror the Rove Republicans, pure and simple. I mean really, it just keeps getting worse with them every year. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 09:37 AM (#2285258) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Amos Maureen Dowd comments: "The Clintons are known political cat burglars. They pilfered Republican jewels in the '90s, and Hillary has purloined as much as she can stuff in her pantsuit from her husband and Barack Obama. She changed to Change. She co-opted "It's time to turn the page" and "Fired up and ready to go." She couldn't wait to shoplift the words "yes" and "can" from Obama's trademark "Yes, we can!" — (which he appropriated from Cesar Chavez) — even though she was cagey enough to put them in separate slogans, "Yes, we will!" and "Americans still have that can-do spirit." Bill, master thief, got in on the act, too. After Obama said that his election would tell the world that America is back, Bill said that Hillary's election would tell the world that America is back. Although the only solid voting bloc in Wisconsin Hillary seemed to get was women over 60 years old, she did seem happy that the press had "finally," as she put it, scrutinized him. America's pretty boy was getting muddied up. The Clinton camp has spent days trying to undermine Obama's chief asset, the elegant language that has sparked a generational boom. "We're seeing a pattern here," Hillary enforcer Howard Wolfson said, in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Yeah, we are. She's losing, and looking for anything to bruise Obama. ..." |
|
11 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM (#2285262) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: McGrath of Harlow I would not have preferred Gore over Bush. That's quite consistent with what I wrote. "Many of the people who voted for Nader" isn't the same as all. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 09:56 AM (#2285271) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Amos Ya know, Gigi, I admire your independence of thought, such as it is. It raises serious issues for reflection. The math of voting for Nader, for example, is very unappealing from the perspective of herd-think, because there is this underlying mechanism of "social proof" which people often resort to when they are not into sorting out their own thoughts or inspecting data personally. And a lot of people are not -- it has become, through whatever reason, too painful to rub two thoughts together. But from the perspective of stating clearly and honestly what you see as the preferred candidate -- the integrity of the individual voter --voting for Nader becomes compelling, just as for many thoughtful people La ROuche was the only candidate that made sense on the same basis. I think the current election is fortunate in this respect -- I disagree with your assessment of Obama's character. I think he has many of the positive traits that Nader has and that La Rouche has, but he lacks their political flaws, to a large degree. None of this is absolute, of course. The notion that someone could come away with an opinion so different from your own may make you gnash your teeth with anger, but that's a personal problem, not part of the issue. I don't suppose you guys have seen the top side of 40 degrees Faranheit lately? A |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:55 PM (#2285819) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Scared Wanna see something really scary? Research "Obama's Church" It'll take a little shine off his halo. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:58 PM (#2285822) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Peace Yeah. A member without the cajones to post under his own name uses the moniker GUEST,Scared, and you think THAT provides you with credibility? Then you quote a cheap blog? GET A LIFE. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 10:08 PM (#2285925) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest Nice try Amos. But there is no comparing Nut Case LaRouche to Nader. Nader has an actual record--a stunning one, in fact. LaRouche? A cult following and jail time. A man without a vanguard movement to front. Everyone who ever worked closely with him has called him out on his lies, and some have described him as a likely FBI plant. OTOH, about the worst Nader's former colleagues who turned against him have said is 'he was mean'. But good on ya trying to pull the guilt by association thing w/your Nader/LaRouche comparison, Amos. But Homey don't play dat tune neither. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 10:19 PM (#2285936) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Amos Actually, I gotta say that when we get calls from La Rouche's machine, they make more sense sometimes than most Republicans. A |
|
11 Mar 08 - 10:29 PM (#2285944) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: GUEST,Guest A sure sign you have never looked that closely at the guy. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 10:34 PM (#2285948) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: Riginslinger You mean he really exists? |
|
12 Mar 08 - 12:02 PM (#2286436) Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'??? From: dick greenhaus OTOH, about the worst Nader's former colleagues who turned against him have said is 'he was mean'. Well, I've never been a colleague of his, but I've worked within the same organization, and I can add that he's a zealot, monomaniacal, inflexible and, often, very ill-informed. |