Silly Mrs. Clinton

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
2861U2 said:


:rolleyes: Nice try. She is no moderate. She is on the left of the political spectrum. Why is that hard?

Going by what I'm guessing her true views on the big issues are, she is on the left of the U.S. political spectrum. Going by what she publically presents as her views on the big issues, she is a moderate by on the U.S. political spectrum.

Nearly every U.S. politician save for a very small few(Kennedys, etc) is moderate on the WORLD's political spectrum.

Do you even know what the furthest left means on the WORLD'S political spectrum? It means communist. That's why the less intellectally gifted members of the U.S. right call those on the U.S. left 'commies' or 'pinkos' sometimes. Believe it or not, some people equate 'against the war' with 'communist'. Amazing, I know.

Hillary is no communist.
 
2861U2 said:


I'd be worried about that.

She wants to take things away from me on behalf of the common good.

Are you fricking serious? Perhaps you should refresh your memory on what is communism, what is socialism, on the political spectrum among other things. :|
 
2861U2 said:


I'd be worried about that.

She wants to take things away from me on behalf of the common good.

Yeah she'd probably like poor children to be able to see the doctor...what a bitch.
 
CTU2fan said:


Yeah she'd probably like poor children to be able to see the doctor...what a bitch.

:rolleyes: Funny.

In all seriousness though, from a die-hard Republican, I want nothing more than for her to get the Democratic nomination.













:drool:
 
This topic title keeps putting "Frankly Mr. Shankly" by the Smith in my head.


2861U2 said:

Poor kids at the doctor - HAHHHAHA. I'm with you, buddy. That's funny shit. :hi5: Ah man...could you imagine going to the Doctors and seeing poor kids....:lmao: Oh boy, what will they think of next? Medical Plans that old people can understand? HAHAHA. I fuckin kill me. Here's one: Equal taxation for the super rich! HA. I gotta stop now. I'm going burst a rib.
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:

She wants to take things away from me on behalf of the common good.

Like the tax money for bridges, roads, schools, police and fire?

I think you are just pulling chains around here.

You can't be serious about half the stuff you post.
 
You know, I'm not the biggest Hillary fan (I was in the 90s, before she started compromising on issues she was completely right about to begin with), but this frothing at the mouth by the right at the thought of her being their President is so delightful. It would be such a pleasure to watch next November, I can't even begin to explain how much.
 
martha said:
I'm going to ask another question. :sexywink: We'll see what happens.

At least you know that the perfect way to get rid of a wingnut is to ask him/her a question!
 
There is hypocrisy on the left and on the right. Just because she said something hypocritical doesn't mean all democrats are hypocrits. Same goes for the right. Just because Bush is a neo-con doesn't mean all Republicans are like him. I hate it when people use one persons wrongs to criticize their whole party. This is why Republicans have a bad name. People think that just because someone is Republican means that they support nation building and policing the world. Totally untrue. I am a Republican and am quite upset that certain idiot Republicans have set such a bad image of my party.
 
martha said:


I'm going to ask another question. :sexywink: We'll see what happens.

What things will she take away from you, and how will those taken things help the common good?

I shall answer. Sorry I didnt answer immediately, melon. Some people have better things to do on Friday nights than hang out on Interference.

Quote from Mrs Clinton: "The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund."

She wants to steal money from companies. She must think the government is entitled to take whatever it wants. She wants to repeal our tax cuts. She wants to take away from the rich and give to the "common good." That is socialism, and I dont like it. Maybe you guys all do.
 
2861U2 said:


I shall answer. Sorry I didnt answer immediately, melon. Some people have better things to do on Friday nights than hang out on Interference.

Quote from Mrs Clinton: "The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund."

She wants to steal money from companies. She must think the government is entitled to take whatever it wants. She wants to repeal our tax cuts. She wants to take away from the rich and give to the "common good." That is socialism, and I dont like it. Maybe you guys all do.


:up:
 
I agree that there are things like healthcare which are currently major, important problems. But we live in a capitalist society. Taking away money from rich people and legitimate companies is not the way to solve the problems. Perhaps if we had a more competent Congress we might get some laws changed instead of just having to take away from the rich and give to the common good.
 
2861U2 said:
I agree that there are things like healthcare which are currently major, important problems. But we live in a capitalist society. Taking away money from rich people and legitimate companies is not the way to solve the problems. Perhaps if we had a more competent Congress we might get some laws changed instead of just having to take away from the rich and give to the common good.

Exactly. I don't mind raising healthcare spending but not by raising taxes. We need to cut spending elsewhere. We have a major problem in the Congress with earmark spending. Congressmen spend money on people who support them. It is all corrupt. The War in Iraq is unnecessary. We need to cut spending on all those and put it towards more important causes such as health care.
 
2861U2 said:
But we live in a capitalist society. Taking away money from rich people and legitimate companies is not the way to solve the problems.

I'm going to play "devil's advocate" for a second. Didn't Jesus say, "sale all your jewelery and give it to the poor"? Why is it that you push for certain Biblical teachings in government but not others?
 
2861U2 said:

She wants to steal money from companies. She must think the government is entitled to take whatever it wants. She wants to repeal our tax cuts. She wants to take away from the rich and give to the "common good." That is socialism, and I dont like it. Maybe you guys all do.

Honestly this is just some messed up paranoia:huh:

I don't understand it at all....companies should have some social responsibility...socialism does not mean communism...do you consider all of Europe's democracies to be commies?

No one wants to live in a completely socialist country...there is a happy medium you know...socialism does not mean the end of private property, the loss of free markets...everyone becoming poor because of the state...it is idiocy to think so.

People here still work hard to better themselves, even with higher taxes than in the states...it is one of the greatest falsehoods of the right, where would the incentive to work be, if taxes were higher? Unless Americans are inherently lazier than Europeans which I sincerely doubt, I don't think anyones attitude to work would change.
 
2861U2 said:


Well, she seems to be running with a "I'm my own woman" demeanor. Why do you think all her bumper stickers say "Hillary" while everyone else's say the last name? I think she is trying to, to a degree, distance herself from Bill, or at least his presidency of the 90s. So I call her Mrs. Clinton just to acknowledge her Clinton-ness.

Rush does the same :wink:


She IS her "own woman", with her own identity that is not just the wife of Bill Clinton. She was Mrs. Clinton when she was first lady, now she's a Senator and running for President. So as far as trying to distance herself, I think she is merely asserting her own identity which is every woman's right- single or married.

It's easy to figure out why Rush does that.
 
2861U2 said:


I shall answer. Sorry I didnt answer immediately, melon. Some people have better things to do on Friday nights than hang out on Interference.

Quote from Mrs Clinton: "The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund."

She wants to steal money from companies. She must think the government is entitled to take whatever it wants. She wants to repeal our tax cuts. She wants to take away from the rich and give to the "common good." That is socialism, and I dont like it. Maybe you guys all do.

Learn your politics!

That "stealing" is called taxation, and giving to the common good is called solidarity.
This is done in about 90 per cent of the "Western world".

Socialism is when your own car is common good.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm going to play "devil's advocate" for a second. Didn't Jesus say, "sale all your jewelery and give it to the poor"?

Yes, and I'm more than happy to donate to some charities, but I dont want the government forcing people or companies to give to the "common good". Charity, as nice and generous as it is, is a voluntary act. It shouldnt be forced to happen. I dont want people taking my money (or anyone else's) and spending it elsewhere for me, as much as I can help it (i.e. dont raise taxes like she would)
 
2861U2 said:
I shall answer. Sorry I didnt answer immediately, melon. Some people have better things to do on Friday nights than hang out on Interference.

Except that martha's question wasn't written on "Friday night"; it was written during the day while you were here writing about vast left-wing conspiracies, and you ever so conveniently left after that was asked.

You also have a history of not answering many questions. So cut out the dramatics.

She wants to steal money from companies. She must think the government is entitled to take whatever it wants. She wants to repeal our tax cuts. She wants to take away from the rich and give to the "common good." That is socialism, and I dont like it. Maybe you guys all do.

Then I hope you write your congressmen, pushing for the repeal of government-funding of "faith-based charities," because money is "stolen" to fund those.

And, as far as I'm concerned, you know nothing about "socialism," except in how to use it as a derogatory word for policies that you perceive as "leftist." Because what you describe is not "socialism," but, instead, the nature of government.

Additionally, unless you like America's national security being determined by unsavory foreign nations, we need to have a sustainable tax base. As it stands, we are borrowing heavily from foreign governments. Why can't we tackle nations like China for things like human rights violations and currency manipulation? Because they happen to hold very large USD currency reserves, and they've flat out threatened to trigger such a large sell-off as to heavily devalue our currency. Why can't we tackle Saudi Arabia for being a nation of fanaticism? Similar reasons; they have over $1 trillion invested here.

As far as I see it, all you "tax cut" fanatics are living in la la land. You want a strong government, but you don't want to pay for it--and national polls consistently indicate this. Compared to other Western nations, we pay very little in taxes--yet if you listen to all the wingnuts out there, you'd think that we're still being robbed. All the while, we have a crumbling national infrastructure, from aging bridges, sewers and dams, an expensive but never-ending war with amorphous "goals" that are questionable as to whether they can be met, a large national population with questionable education and skills, meaning that they're especially vulnerable to corporate outsourcing and downsizing, etc. And all you are worried about are your goddamn "tax cuts." I've never known one single rich person ever go poor from paying taxes, and I doubt that will change. So quit bitching.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I'm going to play "devil's advocate" for a second. Didn't Jesus say, "sale all your jewelery and give it to the poor"? Why is it that you push for certain Biblical teachings in government but not others?

Because, for the dominant hegemony (rich white heterosexual Protestants, in the case of the U.S.), religion is a tool for subordination of "minorities," in addition to being the tool to prop up their own power and supremacy.

In other words, when it deals with the lifestyles and behaviors of themselves, "those Bible passages aren't important." When it deals with condemning outsiders, "they will go to Hell for ignoring the Bible."

This is consistent with most "Christian organizations" in America, as they are merely mouthpieces for politically conservative ideology. When it comes to leftist ideology, such as the condemnation of the death penalty, all of a sudden, "this isn't important." Yet, when it comes to conservative ideology, such as abortion, they're ready to excommunicate any liberal Christian that disagrees with them.

That is the reason why certain Biblical precepts are pushed in the government sphere, but not others: because it's self-serving.
 
2861U2 said:


Yes, and I'm more than happy to donate to some charities, but I dont want the government forcing people or companies to give to the "common good". Charity, as nice and generous as it is, is a voluntary act. It shouldnt be forced to happen. I dont want people taking my money (or anyone else's) and spending it elsewhere for me, as much as I can help it (i.e. dont raise taxes like she would)

oh, stop bringing logic and reading comprehension into this.......
 
hawkman said:
oh, stop bringing logic and reading comprehension into this.......

By all means, bring it in. I'm still waiting for it.

All I've seen in this thread about "Mrs. Clinton," so far, are fearmongering stereotypes of "liberals." When conservatives are ready to argue their side coherently, backed up with evidence that can be quantified (Biblical "mythic speech" doesn't count, because, by definition, it cannot be argued), and free of histrionics, I'm always interested in a thread like that.

But that's the problem. Most conservatives "arguments" aren't up for reasonable debate, because they're usually based on what I'd call "passionate stereotypes." I mean, after all, who needs the facts when you have conviction? If you or anyone doesn't like a "liberal argument," then for fuck's sake, come up with an argument of your own, rather than doing the usual job of cutting and pasting articles from unreliable sources (i.e., conservative pundits) or spouting off unsubstantiated nonsense. Because this thread? It's nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense.
 
melon said:


Because this thread? It's nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense.

You know, you dont have to respond to it if you think it is a waste of time.

Oh, and your religion post a few posts ago- I feel sorry for you if that is how you think. It was way off, but I'm sure you know that.
 
2861U2 said:
You know, you dont have to respond to it if you think it is a waste of time.

Let me make this clear:

I don't give a rat's ass whether you and I agree or not. But I will not, under any circumstances, "respect" conservative opinions for the sake of being "different." As I see it, you have to "earn" my respect, which involves writing coherent, substantiated posts. I can "respect" an opinion, if I consider it to be well-written and well-thought out, even if I vehemently disagree with it!

Oh, and your religion post a few posts ago- I feel sorry for you if that is how you think. It was way off, but I'm sure you know that.

Let this here be a prime example of what I'm talking about.

1) Why do "feel sorry" for me?
2) What, in particular, did I write to made you "feel sorry" for me?
3) Why is it "way off"?
4) Why are you "sure I know that"?

For fuck's sake, say something substantive! Anything!!
 
melon said:



1) Why do "feel sorry" for me?
2) What, in particular, did I write to made you "feel sorry" for me?
3) Why is it "way off"?
4) Why are you "sure I know that"?

For fuck's sake, say something substantive! Anything!!

1) I feel sorry for you if that is your take on religion and most, if not all Christians. It must suck going through life so angry and so ill-informed.

2) Your entire religion post about 6 posts up. All of it.

3) It is way off. Religion is a tool? Why do you say that. You say that due to your hatred of right-wing Christians like myself.

Your second paragraph- I never said any Bible passages werent important. Perhaps you should calm down and actually read my posts. What I said was I dont want Hillary or government taking my money forcefully. Charity to whatever organization should be a choice.

Your third paragraph- also off. You have nothing to back up your hate. As far as myself is concerned, I do not wish to excommunicate any liberal Christian who is pro-choice. Your first statement- do you really think every Christian organization in the United States is supported only for political reasons? Your obviously know nothing about religion, melon. Does my church hold services every Sunday to ultimately get a Republican elected in 2008? That is absurd, and that is what you make it sound like.

4) I find it hard to believe anyone actually thinks the way you do, regarding your religion post. Maybe I'm wrong.

Religion drives people's live, and every aspect of it. Everything I do, I try to do for and through God. I dont use it as a "tool" or to advance whatever power or position I would ever get in my life.

Generalizations :shame:
 
Back
Top Bottom