"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" ~ William Shakespeare
OK. Every one's talking about this, so I guess I'll have to add my take. Hillary in tears? Hardly. Hillary is simply doing what Liberals do. Attempting to win the sympathy vote. She finds herself losing ground against Obama, so she's playing the sympathy card. She's either learned from Bill or she is being coached by the same person or persons who taught Bill how to cry on cue. Remember the funeral of Ron Brown? Here's a video to remind you:
The only difference is she hasn't yet learned how to manufacture real tears.
As Rush often says, "Liberals feel. Conservatives think".
Yes, the whole thing is phony. A transparent display of false emotion expressly intended to buoy up a sinking campaign.
Give Hillary's handlers credit, though. They know how to manipulate the Liberal base by using emotion.
But note this: We are often told that it's important to listen as much to how it's said as to what is said. In this instance we need to pay attention to what was said here.
Watch the video, and pay close attention to what she says:
The first red flag goes up when the question is asked. Is this another of Hillary's planted questioners?
Next, listen to her answer. "I have so many opportunities for this country. I just don't want to see us fall backward." What the heck is she talking about? Fall backward? From where? We have a strong thriving economy. We have the lowest unemployment in decades. We have low taxes. Thanks to the surge, which Liberal Defeatocrats like Hillary have opposed vehemently, we are winning the war in Iraq.
And by the way, notice she said "I have so many opportunities...", rather than "I see so many opportunities." That speaks volumes in itself.
Then, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening...We have to reverse it."
Reverse?
Reverse??
She wants to undo all the progress the Republicans have accomplished? Does she want to return America to the days of high unemployment, recession, and high taxes? How about returning us to a pre-9/11 mindset, where we blissfully ignore the buildup of terrorist organizations, supremely confident that they would never have the audacity to actually attack us out of fear of this "paper tiger"? Does she want to return us to the days of desperation? Hopelessness?
No, that's not it at all.
Yes, she sees what's happening, alright. Shes losing! She needs to reverse that or she will not win the nomination, not to mention the Presidency. It seems to me that is very personal.
Very personal indeed.
And It's not about the election. It's about our country and our kids futures.
Please!
There the consummate socialist Liberal goes again. Trying to claw her way to power on the backs of "the children". The same old Liberal line. When all else fails, make it all about protecting our children. How pathetically transparent!
Another note, as an aside:
Has anyone noticed how she precedes almost every statement with the term, "as a woman..."?
Naw, she wouldn't stoop to playing the gender card now, would she?
This, according to Hillary, is about our country.
No, it's not.
It's about Hillary's lust for power. It's about her plans to make this country the United Socialist States of America. It's about making her the Commissar of America. It's about destroying America as we know it, and creating a proletariat cooperative with Hillary as "President for life".
Like Castro.
On the plus side, I believe this obvious ploy will backfire on her. Sooner or later, even the most gullible Liberal voter (and believe me, nothing describes Liberals better than the term, "gullible") will begin to see through this sham. And I believe that time is right around the corner.
Update:
The Liberally biased media agrees with me, Hillary is using emotion to attract voters, as I said. See here.
The big difference is the media sees this as a good thing. I see it as bad. Very bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Mark, if you knew any liberals at all, you'd know that Clinton does not have the support of liberals. She has the support of the Democratic Party establishment, the DNC and good ol' boy Dems.
She is routinely rebuked and dismissed by the more progressive Dems. Your post reads like the writings of someone who is totally unaware of the values of most progressives in our great nation, and more like someone with an agenda.
Do you know that Clinton is probably the most conservative of the Dem candidates (depending upon what issue you're talking about)? You seem to have that HDS (Hillary Derangement Syndrome) - criticizing Hillary simply because she's Hillary.
I'd think that, of the Dem candidates, you'd prefer the most conservative of the lot - which is probably Clinton.
No?
Regardless, we agree, you and I, that it'll be a good thing when she's gone. You can join all of us radical nutty progressives in rejoicing on that day.
Who's the most "conservative" candidates in the democratic presidential field? Well,actually they're all liberals but here's their ranking according to Project Vote Smart as it pertains to how they voted on issues favored by conservatives:
(1) Hillary Clinton voted favorably with conservatives 29.8% of the time.
(2) Joe Biden 22.5 %
(3) Chris Dodd 16%
(4) Barak Obama 14%
Dennis Kucinich 13%
What surprised me about these numbers is the fact that Hillary is twice more conservative than Obama--- who in turn is only 1 point higher Dennis Kucinich.
[posted at: http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=435171]
Or, here's a chart giving an idea of where the Dems stand, Left to Right:
http://reasonableminds.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/presidential-candidates-on-the-political-compass/
This Chart has Kucinich and Gravel as the two left-most, far and away, followed by:
Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton/Dodd/Richardson (it's a little hard to judge on this chart)
Or, another ranking gives the Dems these Liberal Rating:
Obama 84.3
Dodd 79.2
Clinton 78.8
Biden 76.8
Kucinich 79.4
(Kucinich's Liberal rating was so low because he had pretty relatively conservative voting record his first few years, supposedly.)
[source: nationaljournal.com/voteratings/]
The point remains: Clinton is among the more conservative of the Dem candidates. Why do you suppose there's all this hostility towards her, constantly identifying her as the Goddess of socialism, despite the record?
I mean, I understand why liberals oppose her so voraciously, but the conservatives?
Hi Mark,
No, those tears are real. But not for the reason that is implied. The tears are really for the fact that she is losing and falling behind in this race that is personal, because she thinks she is entitled to the presidency. What a nut case. Maybe she will lose and fade into the background and really learn to iron shirts and bake cookies.
After watching the video I have one thing to say.
Gag
I've asked this same question a few times in different places and it always goes ignored. Why is that?
Why is Clinton singled out as the "worst" Liberal of the bunch, when her record shows that not to be the case and when the more progressive liberals don't like her at all and probably wouldn't vote for her if she were nominated?
If you were condemning all the Dems with the histrionics and emotion that y'all reserve for Clinton, that'd be one thing, but you all seem to especially hate her above the others.
It's not because she is more liberal in fact, so I wonder what it is?
No skin off my nose. I'm one of those who would not vote for her if she were the Dem candidate and desperately DON'T want her to be president. I'm just curious.
Dan, I didn't answer your question because this blog is my opinion, and I don't have an obligation to explain why I have an opinion.
But, just to satisfy your curiosity, I will give you my considerably opinionated opinion:
First, you state she is the most Conservative of the Democrats. Well, how do you know? She never states her own opinion. She sticks her finger in the wind and says whatever she thinks the voters will like to hear.
But my opinion of how Liberal she is is based on some comments she has made in the past that don't reflect the majority of voters which would seem to indicate they are her true core beliefs. One major comment I can recall, "I want to take those (oil Company) profits and..."
(There are few more similar comments from her but I would have to spend time googling them and I just don't have the time.)
Anyway, That's Socialist cooperative thinking, and Socialism is decidedly more Liberal than typical Democratic party ideology.
So, in my humble opinion she is much more Liberal than the other candidates.
Oh, and by the way, If you want to discuss the Liberal leanings of the candidates, at least be intellectually honest enough to stop sugar coating the term "Liberal" by calling them "Progressives". There is nothing "progressive" about wanting to take the country back to a pre-9/11 mentality.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really meant to say, "Regressive".
Oh wait.
I don't have to use Google to find "Liberal" Socialism quotations by Hillary. I forgot temporarily that I have them posted right here on my blog. Here are some others:
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
There you go. Is that not enough proof that Hillary is the most Liberal of them all?
There you go. Is that not enough proof that Hillary is the most Liberal of them all?
Those are her words (I assume). But her ACTIONS are why liberals/progressives don't like her and why she is not a representative of our ideals.
Don't tell me what you believe. Show me.
But thanks for answering the question. You don't like her because she sounds "scary liberal" to you. Fair enough.
I don't like her because her actions are not progressive enough.
Word to the wise: If liberalism scares you, then she is the least of your worries amongst the Dems. Look at their records, it's all there.
You are correct that Clinton is a wind-tester and opportunist. You are wrong that she is the most liberal. Just wrong.
As to your criticism of "liberalism" and "progressivism" - I use both words because both words fit my belief system (as does conservatism, sometimes).
Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
When policies need reform, I'm very liberal.
Progressive: favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters.
When the politicians and policies are bad, I'm progressive.
We have bad policies and politicians currently, we need liberalism. We need progressive thinking. They're just words, Mark. Nothing to cause alarm.
By the way, what Clinton, the Dems, the Greens or me personally ARE advocating is NOT socialism. Words have meanings and socialism is about gov't ownership of stuff. No one is advocating that.
YOU are okay with gov't taxing folk to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars a year - taking people's hard-earned money from them! - in order to pay for our military adventurism around the world. You don't have a problem with taxation. You have a problem with particular programs (as do I).
But your support of taxation for your causes doesn't make you a socialist any more than my or Clinton's support of taxation for what we believe to be legitimate programs makes us socialist.
Words have meanings.
By the way, those quotes of Clinton's are mostly out of context. Come on, Mark. Be righteous.
Well, which is it, Dan? Either "They're just words, Mark" or it's "words have meaning".
By the way, even with her votes in the Senate Hillary is not being honest. She votes against her own beliefs to fool the electorate into believing she isn't Socialist. She knows her record will be scrutinized, but her record is not indicative of her core beliefs. It is simply not as important to her as the real prize. The Presidency of the United Socialist States of America.
Crazy? Paranoid delusions? Possibly. But suffice it to say, I don't trust her any further than I trust any other Democrat.
This is an argument over which snake is the most poisonous...
Hillary seems to be the least "progressive", precisely because she tends to make her decisions based upon opinion polls and focus groups, and despite what Dan and the Media would have you believe, this country is NOT overwhelmingly Liberal.
And that fact angers the Kook Left, because they accurately percieve it as a betrayal.
While Mrs. Bill Clinton is every bit as Kooky Leftist as they are, she cannot openly display that fact because she has to preserve her electability (the brass ring is almost within reach!!), and a full-on charge into open Stalinism would destroy that quicker than Howard Dean's political death scream.
And the Kooky-Leftier her detractors are, the further they distance themselves from her, and the angrier they are with her.
I cannot imagine why anyone would actually want her to be president... Her leadership style is, by definition, the absence of leadership, her ideas display at best a profound ignorange of the Constitution and it's function, and at worst an out-right disregard for the constitution and for the values, policies, and people that have made this country great.
Dan has come to the right conclusion, but for all the wrong reasons.
(Fine with me, as long as he got here.)
Vote for Kucinich, Dan. He's your man.
Even if he doesn't get the Democrat Nomination, write him in.
Oh, and while we're at it, let me state one other thing...
"YOU are okay with gov't taxing folk to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars a year - taking people's hard-earned money from them! - in order to pay for our military adventurism around the world. You don't have a problem with taxation. You have a problem with particular programs (as do I)."
WRONG. (At least in my case...)
I am not in favor of the Federal Government taking anyones hard-earned money by direct tax on income at any rate, for any reason, ever.
Not for "military adventurism around the world", not for the purpose of providing healthcare for the chuuldren, not to force the winners of life's lottery to give back to society, not for the purpose of cleaning up the environment.
Not even to help the poor.
Our Government has grotesquely overstepped it's constitutional authority (Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats...) and the "Progressive" income tax scale is the vehicle by which they fund every unconstitutional program and activity.
It is the means by which the Government gnaws away and undermines our freedoms and liberties on an almost daily basis.
It is immoral, sinful, and disgusting.
Everybody... When you are deciding which candidate you will vote for, ask yourself this question...
"Will he/she raise my taxes?"
If the answer is yes, your vote should be no.
Regardless of what they would use your hard-earned money for.
A debate on how liberal or how socialist Hillary is is lost on us. She's a Boshevik.
I think Tug hit it on the head, this is an argument on which snake is the most poisonous. If the venom kills, what difference does it make whether or not it takes four hours to kill, or 14 hours to kill. In the end, you're still dead.
The sad reality is that everyone is trying to bring about "change." Yet, we are winning the war, and the economy is in good shape. I guess they want to change and bring about defeat, and send us into a recession, or depression in order to impose more government programs on us. They could change the current climate in D.C. by actually reducing the size of government. That hasn't happened in a long time. But I don't think that is the change they are thinking of.
Blessings
A debate on how liberal or how socialist Hillary is is lost on us.
This much is true.
After all, if you all know better than Hillary what she thinks - despite her record or what her actual position is - if you know deep in your gut that deep in her soul, she is actually something that she has kept hidden thus far, well then you're clearly receiving signals from someplace - martians? clairvoyance? crystals? - that the rest of us don't have access to. All we have to rely upon is reality, her actual words (in context) and her voting record.
How can we mere mortals who must rely upon actual evidence EVER hope to communicate with you who are well past the point of needing real evidence?
As an aside, how do you propose paying for roads and the military if we don't collect income taxes, Rick?
Or would that be a "reality-based" question beneath needing to be answered for you? The funds would just be there, you know it deep in your gut. You're receiving signals from the great beyond or whatever your method is.
That was me, Dan, not Rick.
First, by cutting out every single thing that the Constitution does not specifically authorize the Federal Government to do. That would cut the Federal Budget to about one eighth of it's current size.
Second, by requiring the Federal Government to stop spending money at the point (or before) that they run out of money.
Same as you, same as me.
Then, through Fees, Tolls, and Consumption taxes.
All of these are completely voluntary, do not require any American Citizen to disclose to one living soul how much money they earn or have, and take class envy, wealth redistribution, and the sin of coveteousness completely out of the mix.
It is wrong, Dan, to use the power of force to take away resources from the people who earn or generate those resources, for any purpose.
Thanks for the correction and reply, Tug. You stated:
Then, through Fees, Tolls, and Consumption taxes.
Taxes are taxes are taxes. They are mutually agreed upon means of paying for our commonly decided upon needs as a society. Just because you or I disagree with spending on a particular program(s) does not make it wrong necessarily. I’d like to spend significantly less on roads, war-mongering and corporate welfare. You’d like to spend less on other programs.
The people have spoken. We are a free people. You are free, if you don’t like what we, the people, have decided to spend our collective money on, to campaign for change or leave to find that nation that doesn’t charge taxes in a way you disagree with.
Good luck with that.
No,Dan, a tax is not a tax is not a tax.
Fees, tolls and consumption taxes are completely voluntary, and are the only way that free people should be taxed.
Income taxes discourage productivity, invade privacy, and when coupled with Nanny State style welfare programs, make slaves of both donor and recipient.
You're right about one thing, however...
The people HAVE spoken.
We The People voted to spend our collective money on the War in Iraq by re-electing George W. Bush in 2004. (He cut taxes, by the way, and the revenue to the treasury more than doubled as a result.)
So, if you don't like what We The People have chosen to spend our collective money on then, blah, blah, blah, nanny-nanny-boo-boo.
Fees, tolls and consumption taxes are completely voluntary, and are the only way that free people should be taxed.
Actually, no. We are free to decide how we want to be taxed. Those who don't like what are representatives decide are free to campaign for change. Failing that, they are free to leave.
The income tax is no more compulsory than a usage tax. Usage tax - you don't want to pay it? You can't buy what you want.
Income tax - you don't want to pay it? You can't stay in this great nation. They're both compulsorily enforced. They're both voluntarily taken part in.
If we move to a sales tax, are you free to NOT pay the tax if you want to purchase the item? No. It's a compulsory tax.
It's all of the same cloth with some advantages and disadvantages to either. But neither is inherently more compulsory than the other.
That's just reality.
On the other hand, I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to other forms of taxation - I'm just rejecting the notion that one is somehow purely stealing and the other somehow purely voluntary.
I think the current system is overly complex. And then, there's the problem with being forced to pay for programs that are against your values (or spending in amounts that are against your values).
One problem that I've yet to see addressed with a purely sales tax approach is - what if the people opt out? This may encourage bartering and consuming less.
Both of which are good things in my estimation, by the way.
It also may encourage a thriving black market - seems you'd have to have a much larger agency than the IRS to manage such a system.
It seems like the result of such a system would be less money going to the feds. Would you be okay if we lost half the money going to the federal coffers and, as a result, half our programs? Spending half as much on our military, on our roads?
I'm not necessarily opposed to a sales tax - although I'm very opposed to flat taxes and regressive taxes - but I've not seen folk address the consequences of such a policy. I may actually be more willing to see half our gov't gone than some here - depends on which half... (ie, which programs).
I just reading about the death of Bill hotaling(aka Francis Lynn). Boy was I surprised and sad. He posted all the time. His comments sparked great debate. Does anyone know what happened? It seems he was writing until his death. Was his real name Bill or Francis, I always wondered. Whoever he was, R.I.P. He'll be missed
If Dan Trabue is "We, the People" as he claims, we are all in for it!!!
Post a Comment