Jump to content

OMG! Hillary announces!


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

OK man. Look I don't want to argue with you anymore if you don't want to talk politics and about the actual point I was trying to make.

 

Still though, why are you being such a c-ck to me in this thread? Been having a bad week?

 

First off, there's nothing wrong about your point that some democratic voters will vote Clinton no matter what, until you brought my name into it and made incorrect assumptions about me and my voting pattern. I was trying to help you out by pointing that out to you. Second, being a democratic voter is not a dirty word, but I don't consider myself one. The way I vote is anti-incumbent overall (because I find many incumbents don't deserve re-election based on poor job performance, their sense of entitlement to be re-elected, and they often abuse their position...everything that can describe Hillary Clinton), and if I think someone is a bad candidate, I don't vote for that candidate. I don't care what party they are from. I am just as likely to vote independent or libertarian, as I am to vote democratic. I even have voted republican in the past, but in recent years, I've found that much of what that party offers fails to align with what I find important. Candidates like Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz are mocked by me, because I find they have a world views that are narrow, and are panderers to people with even smaller and narrower world views, not simply for having an R after their name. Likewise, I am not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she has a D after her name. I told you repeatedly I detest her (for reasons too numerous to list here), but you kept trying to make a point that democratic voters like me will vote for her, anyway. When I corrected you on that point, all I received was dismissive responses, implying I was either too stupid to understand, or failed to read the "brilliant" point you were trying to make. So, if I come off as irritated with you in this thread, that's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter why someone wants me to call them by a particular name. I work with the public as an insurance adjuster, and some people want to be called Mr. Smith, others want to be called Bob. By ignoring their wishes because of my desire for professionalism, I'm being rather insulting. Every public indication is that she wants to be known as Hillary for whatever reason, so I don't think it makes sense to insist that she's too stupid to decide for herself.

 

If Rand Paul wants to start going by his first name, well I think that makes sense because Rand it already seems like his name is backward. Paul Rand sounds like a real name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OMG guys, stop calling her by her first name. That's so sexist.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/opinions/drexler-dont-call-her-hillary/index.html

This particular craziness got ignored in this thread, and that's a shame.

 

Is it more sexist to insist on calling her by her first name, or to REFUSE to call her by her first name, as she indicates she wants (her campaign logo is an H for crying out loud!) because she's a woman and has to be protected?

 

She likes being bossy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think ALL the Democratic party needs to do to win the White House this time is run the footage of ALL the dinosaurs who have said inane crap like that over the past few years-even if they're unrelated to the presidency. The GOP is the party of the old, dusty, Ward Cleaver racist misogynists.

You do realize that if the R candidates can be judged by the quotes of others, the same tactic can be used against Hillary? Its not like the left does not have its own planet-load of moronic statements up for grabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that if the R candidates can be judged by the quotes of others, the same tactic can be used against Hillary? Its not like the left does not have its own planet-load of moronic statements up for grabs.

You're not kidding. The problem is, Justus, that the right will not use them. They're so obsessed with conspiracy theories surrounding Barack Obama that they don't seem to think about anything else. If not Obama, than Hillary or perhaps Nancy Pelosi.

 

What's tragic about this is that two generations ago, conservative intellectuals (there WAS such a thing back then) were absolutely emphatic that not just elections, but the entire course of the nation, were decided by ideas. Comprehensive and logically consistent sets of moral, political and economic ideas had to be devised and articulated to the general public. Nixon, Reagan and Newt Gingrich were absolute masters of this. Even George W. Bush's down home folksy demeanor. This was more an act to appeal to a certain segment of the population. And it all paid off. America went right by leaps and bounds in the late 20th century.

 

The shift away from ideas and towards personalized hatred of democratic party personalities and conspiracy theories seemed to have begun with the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing and the last twenty years have been a long march into obsession over Obama's birth certificate, Obama's alleged Isalmism, bizarre conspiracies to roll back second amendment rights. On and on. 9/11 gave them a bit of a renewed lease, but not one that lasted. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were not turned out to be a damn effective way to squander credibility. So too did repeated attempts to bring God into the science class room, purity balls and abstinence pledges, God hating f*gs, legitimate rapes. They seem quite blissfully unaware of the near uniform progressivism of the under 30 crowd - a phenomena they brought entirely upon themselves.

 

There's no way this would have gone unnoticed thirty years ago. They didn't call Reagan the "Great Communicator' for nothing. WTF happened? Hell, I personally remember a time when the reverse almost seemed to be the case. In the mid 90s, the progressives were in a complete tail spin and the conservatives had the world by the balls. Today, while the left is still far from triumphant, the winds of history, public opinion and social change are clearly in their sails. The GOP would do well to first of all acknowledge this, and then ask themselves why. Because Satan, because Obama, because Hillary, because the New World Order are not good answers. It's the answers they want. But not the answers they need. The old writings of William F. Buckley, Russel Kirk or even going all the way back to great great granddaddy Edmund Burke just might be.

 

I really don't think it matters what Hillary Clinton says at all at this point. Conservative pundits will just simply make up whatever bizarre conspiracy theories that best reflects their anxieties, most likely anxieties surrounding having a woman as president. Just like their rubbish over the last six years was a reflection of Obama's dark skin and middle eastern sounding name, having next to no basis in reality. Their ONLY saving grace thus far has been the fact that Obama is not white, and so their clap trap found a receptive audience in more reactionary circles. Were I a betting man, I'd expect all kinds of bizarre nonsense about Hillary's sexual past and relationship will Bill. "Where's the marriage certificate" could replace "where's the birth certificate" for instance. That would not surprise me at all.

 

What you most certainly will NOT see in the foreseeable future are witty and articulate conservatives actually getting on the ball and using the very real and numerous excesses and absurdities of progressive ideology as mortar for a salable world view that actually reflects the realities of people outside the Fox News/Red State bubble. And that's too bad, because just as we need a liberalism not completely beholden to the woman's studies department, we also need a conservatism not enthralled to the outer limits of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

word.

 

also Huckabee is thinking of doing this dance again. It's like a redux.

He's just looking to renew his contract with Fox, and just hinting he may be a candidate ups his chances at negotiating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.