Subscribe by RSSYes that’s right the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s. For those of you who have no idea who they are, the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s were the subjects of the infamous battle between two rural families over everything from property rights to the color of the sky.
Why do I make this sort of comparison? Well it’s simple really. Hilllary has pulled in Bill and Obama touts Michelle at every chance he gets. Hillary has been quiet since the infamous “emotion” stunt and Bill has taken her place with the finger pointing and name calling.
Unfortunately Mr.Clinton is used to being wrong on key facts. Indisputably Mr.Clinton was caught lying on several occasions throughout his presidency under oath, most famously for the Monica Lewinsky incident where he was forced to back peddle and admit the truth, which led to an eventual impeachment by the U.S. Congress.
First Hillary spouts a message of a united Democratic front, after which she immediately goes on an attack binge against Obama, thus putting Obama in the defensive stance to create a website chronicling her attacks as they happen. I thought it was pretty brilliant. However, somehow the vast majority of the Democratic party seem to completely ignore it, defying any logic or reason.
So the question becomes, is it truly a race issue? Are people content to accept a female over a black male as a “lesser of two evils” type of reasoning? Are they actually voting for the candidates base don where they stand in key issues? I don’t really think so. I presume it not to be arguable that there will be people who refuse to vote for Hillary because she is a female just as there are people who will refuse to vote for Obama due to his skin color. No matter how you slice it, or how small the concept may be, it exists.
If this is their thinking I would have to largely disagree. Hillary Clinton has a history of deceit, lies and questionable financial background. She still refuses many of her past records to be exposed. Too many people surrounding the Clinton circle either wound up dead, pardoned by Bill, or in some way involved in some sort of scandal such as with the Hillary’s Whitewater scandal. (Bill’s and Hill’s partner in crime James McDougal died of a questionable heart attack in federal prison incidentally.)
As even key as I try to stay it is hard for me to refrain myself in thinking there are those who are blindly following political leaders into the voting booths simply based on either “likability”, “name recognition”, “political party affiliation” and little more. The average voter typically isn’t fully aware of where their candidate of choice stands on key issues.
For example: Those who support madam Clinton, aren’t aware that her Universal Healthcare would cause states to raise taxes to the point of keeping people poor just in order to finance it. It isn’t financially feasible, but because less fortunate people want free universal healthcare they vote for her without knowing the full economic impact of the concept.
Folks don’t seem to realize Socialism failed in the former U.S.S.R. and brought the Soviet Union’s economy crashing down as they attempted to convert a “somewhat” democratic society. So how does a candidate that favors socialist ideals manage to convince voters she is the candidate of change for the better? Yeah she is definitely a candidate for change, the WRONG kind of change. No matter how you look at it she is still a part of the old guard,(and McCain the real old guard) thus not a candidate for positive change in my own opinion. First she was the “experience” candidate and now she claims to be the “change” candidate adopting whatever the popular concept at the time is. Lest you forget, it was in fact Obama who first touted himself as the candidate of change so i would challenge that Hillary stole his concept.
Now rather than just discuss the Clintons and Obamas, I could make the same argument for voters who follow such candidates as Ron Paul. Somehow people blindly follow this guy because he thinks he can dissolve the IRS, bring everybody home from Iraq and hide the U.S. from the rest of the world. Unfortunately it just isn’t that easy in the grand scheme of things. Paul’s thinking is far too flawed and simple minded to ever capture the majority of intelligent educated voters which is why he hasn’t done so well thus far in the caucuses.
Are people really voting for change? I would venture to say No. People are voting out of frustration. They think either if Hill gets in office, Bill will help her to fix the economy with Clinton-economics, or that John McCain is the best person to resolve the situation in Iraq. While others are stuck on Romney’s perfect hair and presidential appearance, and Obama’s likability. And again, Ron Paul supporters just show us that there are completely clueless individuals out there who obviously have no idea what’s going on in the world and how best to responsibly act accordingly.
Here’s to the coming recession ….. I think I’ll move to Canada for the next 4 years. (kidding, I’m actually imprisoned behind a 1990’s era computer in Nate’s basement, please send food and drink!)
Angry over and out.
Join the forum discussion
on this post
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
The way you have characterized Democrats here shows me why you are a Republican. You seem to be unable to understand some things.
I’m not going to get into Hillary Clinton’s personal foibles. It’s clear you inherently mistrust the Clintons and I respect that. In fact, I may agree with a lot of it. But it’s BECAUSE I’m looking at her policy over her personality that I am still undecided between her and Obama. I feel that is the case with many of the fellow Democrats I meet.
I’m going to take issue with a few of the points you make.
However, somehow the vast majority of the Democratic parties seem to completely ignore [her attacks on Obama), defying any logic or reason.
Well, my logic and reason tells me it is valid to attack another candidate’s policies if you do not agree with them and think they are faulty. If the candidate is making false claims, it doesn’t bother me for another candidate to point that out either. It is probably not a good strategy to do so to an excessive and tasteless degree, which is why I agree that Bill Clinton should tone it down. But the actual POINTS the Clintons are trying to make, however clumsily, are, I think valid.
That’s the difference between Democrats attacking each other and the Republicans doing so, for me. The Republicans tend to take things a step further and attack each other’s character and personal qualities. And when they do criticize each other’s policy stances, they often crack juvenile “jokes” as if everyone under the sun must hate this guy as much as they do, and often don’t bother to explain why or how the other candidate is wrong in any meaningful way. They seem to have no respect for each other, and that’s a huge turnoff to me. That especially came out in all the other candidates’ attitudes toward Ron Paul, whose ideas are admittedly out there, but in no way deserves to be mocked by his fellow Party members and makes everyone else look bad. As a young person, most everyone I know is for either Paul or Obama, and to watch these old farts laugh at Paul’s radical views just shows to me that the GOP in particular is stuck in the dark ages. The young Republicans are less conservative but are staunchly in support of smaller government and personal freedom, and I think the party elite need to take note of how many of its members are flocking to this type of view and why, and adjust accordingly. Otherwise they’ll be shuffled to the back of the deck in the coming years.
o the question becomes, is it truly a race issue? Are people content to accept a female over a black male as a “lesser of two evils†type of reasoning?
I can not even describe to you how very much this is not the case. From what I’ve seen, the white Democrats are torn between wanting to elect BOTH — they want a black president AND a female president, and it’s like choosing between cake and pie. But honestly, those two superficial qualities are not what is the deciding factor for any Democrat that I know. Because electing either of them would be historic in the continuing battle for equality, and because I don’t believe anyone thinks a black man or a woman would be a lesser president BECAUSE s/he was black or a woman, we’re looking at their policies, and who we think would be able to change the country for the better. I believe that the race and gender issues have only been a positive thing for Democrats in this race.
For example: Those who support madam Clinton, aren’t aware that her Universal Healthcare would cause states to raise taxes to the point of keeping people poor just in order to finance it. It isn’t financially feasible, but because less fortunate people want free universal healthcare they vote for her without knowing the full economic impact of the concept.
Actually, we ARE aware of that. At least, the people I know are aware. I can’t speak for all other Democrats on this, but most Democrats I know would be willing to pay more taxes in order help those poorer people who face huge obstacles in obtaining and paying for healthcare, especially children. Besides, the last thing a true Democrat would do was tax someone who couldn’t afford to be taxed. The taxes will (should) be on the people who can handle it. I know this is diametrically opposed to the Republican viewpoint, which thinks healthcare should work as a market, and if you can’t afford it, it’s because you aren’t working hard enough so it’s your own fault. I’m actually unsure of where I stand on what would be the best route in this situation, but I do feel that it is probably neither of those extremes that will work — or perhaps both together. There are people who just will not be able to afford healthcare at some point, and I do feel those people should be provided for as I believe it is the government’s job to work towards a healthy citizenship. I actually think we should be doing that through prevention rather than treatment, but that’s a ways away.
Folks don’t seem to realize Socialism failed in the former U.S.S.R. and brought the Soviet Union’s economy crashing down. So how does a candidate that favors socialist ideas manage to convince voters she is the candidate of change? Yeah she is definitely a candidate for change, the WRONG kind of change.
Yeah, the wrong kind of change… for a Republican. Some of these views are indeed loosely based on aspects of socialist ideals — and I stress, ASPECTS and IDEALS. I believe the idea of socialism is good, if it actually worked, which it doesn’t, because it is much too easily corrupted. However, the same is true of pure capitalism and tiny government. What works is capitalism with some government regulation to protect human rights and keeping as much wealth dispersed fairly into the populace as possible. That means NOT letting corporations and the wealthiest people horde it all, as some are wont to do. Obviously this formula still needs some tweaking, but I believe it works as well as if not better than anything that has ever been tried before. Remember we already went through a period in the early 1900s when business ruled and no worker had any rights, and there was hardly such thing as a middle class as we know it today because of that. We need the middle class to be huge, and the extremes at either end to be small, and the only way to do that is with government moderation of otherwise free markets.
Going back to Paul — I totally agree his views are fairly simple-minded and laughably drastic and unworkable. I believe it’s his views on foreign policy that are speaking to people the most. Yes, a lot of them don’t seem to have an real understanding of how the world works, but the idea behind it — that we need to stop instigating fights with other countries — I think is a backlash to the Bush doctrine, the pendulum swinging the other way. We don’t want to be the kind of country that goes to war with people who have done nothing to us. We want war to be the absolute last resort, and I think many people feel that the Iraq War has not been worth the cost. And so a simple and clear message of PULL ALL TROOPS OUT OF EVERYWHERE seems to speak to that, however unfeasible it is.
I definitely do think people are voting for change. And not everyone is an intellectual, so yes, they are voting with their guts. At least they are participating in their democracy.
Very well thought out and debated however with some error:
1. The points Bill tries to make aren’t valid for the most part at all. Obama has repeatedly disproven everything tossed at him. The research done prior to these attacks isn’t thorough on the subject matter.
2.The race card IS actually taken into account, more people are going to vote AGAINST Obama simply for that purpose, but this is just my opinion, and I don’t believe it’s without merit. Where he lacks the experience, is what’s better as opposed to Hillary’s tainted political career. I judge her equally on her personality as well as her politics and policies, because they reflect upon each other. She’s simply not trustworthy and like Bush I don’t want someone in the White House I can’t trust. She constantly refers to Bill’s accomplishments with “When my husband was in office…” Those were Bill’s policies not her’s while she no doubt may have had some small input on some of them, she has no claim or merit to accomplishments that were not hers.
3. Do more research on the economic impact of Hillary’s healthcare plan, I’ve seen quite a bit of research and the point I was making is simply you as an individual wouldn’t be able to afford the imposed taxes necessary to pay for it. You can do a research that was done on I believe Michigan.
4. The wrong kind of change for Americans, period. The middle and lower class would dissolve should Hillary manage to float any socialist concept reform. It involves way too much taxation. Past ecenomic growth has always been through the fruition of lower taxes. You can’t end a recession by increasing taxes in order to pay for social medicine. It’s self conflicting. What actually needs to happen is less dependency on welfare programs and more educational programs to influence lower class people to learn and be capable of earning higher dollars.
ML I respectfully disagree with your comments. First I will start to pick apart your agreement that “the way you have characterized Democrats here shows me why you are a Republican. You seem to be unable to understand some things†and your further comments on “That’s the difference between Democrats attacking each otherâ€. Have you forgotten that Hillary came out and attacked Obama a few weeks ago by bring up his use of cocaine? Or did you fail to pick up on that because it was so subtly acknowledged by the Clinton Machine. Sounds like a personal attack from one democrat to other democrat, does it not? You also mention that “the way the to watch these old farts laugh at Paul’s radical views just shows to me that the GOP in particular is stuck in the dark agesâ€. Who are you trying to fool? Dennis Kucinich is the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party. A few months ago John Edwards and Hillary Clinton forgot that their mics were on and muttered to one another that it was time to exclude the tier 2 candidates. What about the beating that Kucinich took after his acknowledgment for UFO’s and Aliens? All personal attacks.
â€The young Republicans are less conservative but are staunchly in support of smaller government and personal freedom, and I think the party elite need to take note of how many of its members are flocking to this type of view and why, and adjust accordingly.†Being a young Conservative Republican I can say that you are right. I have a hard time dealing with the liberal moron’s of my age group that like to claim themselves “Republicansâ€. They’re not! I have never been more disappointed in one thing as much as I am my own generation. We live in a society of liberal tolerance and a lot of the problems that this generation acquired is from their parents. You know the hippy leftovers from the 60’s that claim to not have inhaled. I personally am sick of sitting in a classroom, fully knowing that I’m paying for the liberal indoctrinations of college professors who didn’t have enough guts to pick up a gun and defend this country and it’s freedom that they enjoy, knowing that there are students in class who know nothing about politics or have the know-how to form an educated opinion of their own.
“As a young person, most everyone I know is for either Paul or Obamaâ€, Not this young person. I choose not to be “cool to my peers by jumping on the Obama/Paul band wagon†in a time when terrorist are knocking on our door, if it wasn’t for our soldiers who are yours and my age, we would be wearing Burqas and praying to Mohammad. Hey that reminds me, is it not Hillary’s camp that is emphasizing Barack Hussein Obama.
Politics is a dirty game, and like they say, if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I do not see how fruitful a debate over constructed party lines would be. We have a two-party system that is largely undemocratic — especially the Democratic Party (which I am learning through this ridiculous super-delegate system— more than 1/3 of the primary vote does not come from the people!).
However, I do want to take issue with Conservative Gal’s comments about our soldiers. First and foremost, I respect those who enter into the armed forces to protect our country. They are largely lower-middle class and lower class individuals, many minorities, and they are boxed in when it comes to opportunities. They risk their lives to make a decent wage, provide for their families, and help our country.
But the idea that our soldiers are currently preventing our country from becoming Muslim?
“If it wasn’t for our soldiers who are yours and my age, we would be wearing Burqas and praying to Muhammad.”
This is ludicrous. The largest Islamic population in the world is in Indonesia, the second is in India, the third is in China! Do you see any of these Muslim groups making problems in the United States?! Do you really think that Muslims are trying to invade and take over our country?
If you want to get specific, Conservative Gal, it is the fact that our military bases, our pop-culture, and economic presence (which is dwindling) has been encroaching upon Islamic countries for the past 40+ years.
Christianity is the largest religious group in the world (over 2 billion) and some of the fastest growing evangelical sects are Christian denominations. Conversions are coming from all different religions!
Our boys were sent into Iraq initially because of a supposed WMD. Let’s not forget that. It was the idea that Iraq posed a direct threat to this country that justified our initial invasion. Biological gas aside, there was none. And the Iraqi government could have never directly attacked our country.
If you want to talk about “terrorist” know that there have been more Christian terrorist attacks on this country’s soil than “Islamic.” The Muslim shoe-bomber, 1993 and 2001 attacks aside, I can name countless attacks from the Atlantic Olympics’ bombing to the Turner Diaries’ own Timothy McVeigh, who hoped to wake up this “Christian” nation.
The battle is not against “Islam,” it is against a radical religious group of individuals called Al Qaeda. Let’s not erase distinctions here. Do we call all Christians KKK members?
Sorry for overloading, but this rhetoric keeps recycling all over the place.
Barack Obama lied about Rezko!
So, what, we’re suppose to believe that he was just associated with a law firm that partnered with Rezko? Just some guy? This is not true. In some circles it is called a lie. Now I don’t know about you, but when someone starts tap dancing about simple, easily investigated facts it means they are covering something up. Obama had more than an incidental relationship with Rezko.
Google Rezko!
Michael, now I’ve got to take issue with some things in your post.
First of all, there are countless examples, and I know of some personally, of people who decided to join the military after 9/11 because they wanted to serve their country, not because they had “limited opportunities”. Is it an incentive for some people? Sure, so are a lot of things but you cannot make that broad generalization that the military is made up only of individuals who just saw it as a way out of their financial situation, that implication is ludicrous.
I had a family member who was killed in Afghanistan serving his country. He was in his third year of college and chose to join after 9/11, he felt a duty to serve. He had plenty of opportunity but thought it was more honorable to serve his country and protect the freedom of his future generations. He chose to give the ultimate sacrifice when he had limitless opportunities so the fact that you paint the military in a way that implies they’re all in it for the money is offensive. We can have this civil discussion because people put the honor of serving their country ahead of their own interests, and still do to this day so let’s not forget it.
Also, you yourself admitted there were WMDs by saying “biological gas aside”. Saddam used them in the 1980s and murdered thousands of people, there’s not even a question of whether or not he possessed them. The intelligence which overestimated the amounts was wrong, but don’t tell me he didn’t have them because I’ve seen the video footage of dead Kurds.
Second, the fact that you have tried to compare examples such as Timothy McVeigh (a few people) with the advent of radical Islamic terrorism (millions of people). Furthermore, where is the “Christian terrorism”, as you put it, on the mass scale of Islamic terrorism? Please, inform me because I haven’t seen it.
What I have seen, and continue to see, is radical Islamists launching attacks at the entire Western world in numerous countries. Even countries which are outrageously tolerant of Islam such as the United Kingdom.
This battle is against radical Islam a.k.a “Islamic extremists”. Al-Qaeda makes up a part of it and they do it all in the name of Islamic jihad, let’s not pretend they don’t.
Does that mean all Muslims are radical terrorists? Of course not, most are peaceful just like you and I. However, there is a radical sect of Islam which is devoted to overtaking the west, there’s no debate about that.
Basically I see it that many of your points keep recycling all over the place by spreading half-truths about the military and radical Islam.
Conservative Gal,
OK, three issues here:
1) Military
I understand there are a lot of patriotic people who volunteered to serve after 9/11. Attacks, whether personal or national, tend to evoke aggressive (or defensive) responses from us all.
However it has been a long-standing statistic that the majority (not all, and I never said this) of people who join the military comes from minorities and low-income families. This is not a debatable topic.
Furthermore, outreaches by the military to offer financial support to pay for college (etc.) are examples of how people who are financially strapped enter the armed services in order to get an opportunity for more. There are also many military families who continue their own legacy, generation after generation, but the vast majority of newcomers are low-income.
2) WMD
My point about the WMD is that biological weapons used against people in Iraq did not constitute a DIRECT THREAT to the United States. If you want to claim that a country having and using biological weapons constitutes invading them, them you had better get prepared for many more countries than the ones we are already fighting in. The WMD described before we went into the war were classified as a NUCLEAR threat, as done by a CIA minority report that the Bush administration trusted and responded to. NOT biological weapons. This is my point– Iraq was never established as having a DIRECT threat to the overall safety of the United States.
3) “Radical Islamic Terrorism (millions of peope)” Who are you referring to? All experts on terrorism considered that Al Qaeda was near depleting their numbers AFTER the 9/11 attack. It was since then that their numbers have grown, partly due to a fueling global feud that enables people to see the world divided into two camps. There is NO ONE working on terrorism that has made mention that there are millions, let alone ONE million Islamic terrorists. The largest Islamic terrorist cells a few years ago were located in Malaysia, and these were in the thousands.
If you really want to get into “Christian” terrorists, google the statistics on the IRA (Catholic vs. Protestant), Bosnian genocide (Christians massacring Muslims, see “The Bridge Betrayed” by Michael Sells), guerrilla attacks in a multitude of South American countries. ALL religions have adherents that take religion to the extreme. Before you accuse and perpetuate a canard, substantiate.
Obama’s efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.
The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten’s of billions.
Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.
Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.
Two years ago, Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin “Tony†Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.
LIKE FATHER LIKE SON –
Recently, Obama’s campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges — Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM “PATWANG-FWEEE” and disclose Obama’s MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago’s Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke “GLORK” Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo “GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA” Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! –
OBAM YOU’RE NO JFK —
“GLORK” Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: “Tales Calculated To Drive You.” He is a MUSLIM “Glork” He’s MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM “PATWANG-FWEEE” and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake “GLORK” Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo “GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA” Police Department Buffalo Creek.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/