14
   

get this woman out of my view/politics

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2015 10:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I am still hoping Hawk will explain to us why we are not following the "fundamental rules of capitalism"...so that we do not have capitalism.

I'm guessing that he means that in a true capitalistic system, all the "too big to fail" banks would simply have been allowed to fail without being bailed out by the government.

But I claim no skill as a mind reader, so he may have meant something else.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2015 11:01 am
@oralloy,
I was clear about that when I said that we have privatized profits and socialized loses, plus we dont let failed firms die and disappear.

I also said that the government picks winners and losers, which is what the Soviets did, it is not capitalism.

And that is just the start of why what we have is not capitalism. There is much to not like about modern america, but dont say that it sucks because of capitalism.

As a socialist I am not defending capitalism, I am simply insisting that we speak truth.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2015 05:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
But Carville also said this, in a rare unguarded comment: “I suspect she didn’t want Louis Gohmert rifling through her e-mails, which seems to me to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take.”

Republicans pounced on this as an inadvertent admission that Clinton was just trying to avoid legitimate congressional oversight. You see, Representative Gohmert is a GOP member of the House from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee who’s an outspoken conservative. To put it mildly.

Clinton might want to avoid Gohmert’s scrutiny, but as an administration official she’s not really supposed to do that, at least as far as members of Congress are concerned.

At the least, this is a sensitive subject that the Clinton camp would want Carville to avoid. Instead, he should have gone on a trademark rant, where he becomes red in the face and fires out an emotional defense of his subject in the Louisiana accent that earned him the nickname “Raging Cajun.”

As performance art these rants are really quite impressive. But his offhand comment will give Republicans a talking point they’ll be waving around for days.

“Team Clinton is going to have to ask their surrogates to stop helping, and soon. At this rate, Clinton’s backers are going to help her right out of the race,” writes Noah Rothman at right-leaning Hot Air.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-james-carville-reveal-secret-behind-hillary-clintons-154712068.html

Part of the problem is that there is no defense for what Hillary did, but a big problem is also that this campaign so far as been not ready for prime time, which was the major problem with her last campaign. This woman spends year getting ready for stuff, and then consistently is not ready. That is a problem.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2015 05:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
I cannot help but wonder why you are not praying for her to get the nod.

I cannot help but wonder why the entire of the GOP establishment is not.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2015 07:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I cannot help but wonder why you are not praying for her to get the nod.

I cannot help but wonder why the entire of the GOP establishment is not.


facts not in evidence

Quote:
An establishment Republican nominee has dim chances of winning the White House in 2016 unless Hillary manages to gain the Democratic nomination. Hillary won’t be the Democratic nominee; the left is making sure of it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/do_republicans_win_without_hillary.html#ixzz3UbJdybnh
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Negative perceptions of Hillary Clinton have risen in the wake of news reports detailing her exclusive use of a personal e-mail account, rather than a government address, while she was secretary of state, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Clinton, a possible 2016 Democratic presidential contender, was viewed favorably by 53 percent of those surveyed March 13-15 and unfavorably by 44 percent. That compares to a 59 percent favorable versus 38 percent unfavorable response rate from November 21-23.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents said Clinton is someone they'd be proud to have as president. At the same time, half found her to be "honest and trustworthy," compared to 56 percent who said the same when they were asked that question a year ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-16/poll-hillary-clinton-favorability-dips-after-e-mail-flap?cmpid=yhoo

Not a great time to be moving in reverse. I think I saw where her numbers have been going in reverse for three years.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2015 06:07 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I cannot help but wonder why you are not praying for her to get the nod.

I cannot help but wonder why the entire of the GOP establishment is not.


facts not in evidence

Quote:
An establishment Republican nominee has dim chances of winning the White House in 2016 unless Hillary manages to gain the Democratic nomination. Hillary won’t be the Democratic nominee; the left is making sure of it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/do_republicans_win_without_hillary.html#ixzz3UbJdybnh



Which, of course, reinforces my comment.

Why are you not doing everything you can to get the Dems to nominate her?

Why are the members of the GOP establishment not trying to do everything they can to get the Dems to nominate her?

Why in the name of everything reasonable and logical...are you guys doing everything you can to show her weaknesses to the Dems at every opportunity...so that they might choose to forego her...and choose someone else?

I think you guys are scared witless of her. I think you guys want anyone but her to lead the Dem ticket. Your protestations to the contrary only make me laugh out loud, Hawk, because this is one of those times when we should be ignoring the lyrics of the song you are singing....and be listening only to the music.

You see her as the greatest threat to the GOP getting another nation destroyer into the Oval Office...the greatest threat to the election of another of the champion of the barons you suck up.



https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlMxfUgg6KxEasijtQBEjlFIDj1h7iWa80aW7ZXJj4pF4gVGz65w
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2015 07:47 am
@Frank Apisa,
Because I despise both parties and because I am not expecting to see solutions comming from Washington anytime soon. For me the chase for the POTUS chair is on par with a baseball game, it is entertainment.

the exception to this is that this election will matter if we make both houses plus POTUS R controlled. I have not made up my mind on if this happens this time. I think the R's have a 99% chance for the house, 75% for POTUS, but Senate IDK.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2015 08:22 am
@hawkeye10,
Well, Hawk, while I acknowledge that I “despise” American conservatism…I do not feel that way toward the two major parties, although I do have lots of reservations about the GOP because it gives safe harbor to the nuts on the American far right.

ANYONE trying to govern this country is taking on a monumental task…and the citizenry is of very little help. For one, the American public simply does not want to be governed. We have foolishly fallen in love with the idea of individual freedom and liberty, which many perceive of as license.

For another, we expect the leaders we choose to be altruistic...which I consider to be an extremely unrealistic expectation.

Be that as it may, decent society requires LOTS of governing…to a point where I do not want to go right now. Somebody has to do it.

The Monday morning quarterbacks do not help…in fact, for the most part, they are part of the problem. I see you…and many of the notions you post…as part of the problem.

I noticed your, “I think the R's have a 99% chance for the house, 75% for POTUS, but Senate IDK.”

Most I can say about that is: 86.5% of all statistics are made up right on the spot. When the statistics apply to political situations, that percentage rises to 94.8%!
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2015 08:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
For one, the American public simply does not want to be governed. We have foolishly fallen in love with the idea of individual freedom and liberty, which many perceive of as license.


I'm guilty as charged. Get out of my head, Frank. Embarrassed Sad
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2015 08:57 am
@argome321,
I probably am also, Argome...although I see that I am foolish for thinking this way.

When the first group composed of more than one family was formed...some individual freedom had to be ceded. License...effectively ended with a collective.

As the groups became tribes...more freedom went...and less privacy became the norm.

As tribes became states and nations...the move away from personal freedom and license increased...and privacy effectively ceased to exist.

My personal feelings are that the loss of personal freedom and personal privacy is NOT the evil so many many want to consider it to be. It is the price of civilization.

Orwell's 1984 may be an unintentional story of progress toward true civilization.



0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 05:38 am
Quote:
Despite fretting among some Democrats who worried that the party's best -- and perhaps only -- viable Democratic candidate appeared to be in trouble, early signs suggest Clinton is doing what the Clintons do best: mounting a comeback.

"The interest in the story is collapsing onto itself. I don't see an organic clamoring for more information," said a longtime Clinton ally who didn't want to speak for a campaign that hasn't yet been announced.

This person, who has spent time in Iowa, argued that outside the community of political reporters and consultants in Washington and New York who fixated on the story, the people who really count -- voters -- weren't really interested.

"People very much want to know what the campaign is going to be about ... what is she going to do about student loan costs, for example?"

Tharon Johnson, a Democratic strategist who was Southern regional director of Obama's re-election campaign in 2012, agreed.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/hillary-clinton-election-2016-emails/index.html

I know this is CNN so I dont expect more than HS journalism...but damn. The fact that Senior Washington insiders claim to not care and sell the idea that people dont care does not in fact actually indicate that people dont care. This is theater. This is a manipulation effort by highly skilled and highly paid manipulators. Pitty the readers who walk away thinking that America does not care, that Hillary is fine.

Quote:
Hillary Clinton's image is worse than at any point since 2008. That's the big takeaway from a new CNN/Opinion Research poll released late Monday. And it's true; 44 percent now have an unfavorable opinion of her -- the highest that has been since June 2008, shortly after Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/17/hillary-clinton-is-increasingly-unpopular-its-not-because-of-her-e-mails/

Not fine. Her unfavorables are up 10 points in just the last few months.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 05:56 am
And Hawk is so interested in seeing that the Dems win next year...he wants desperately to save them from making the mistake of going with Hillary!

What a great guy!
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 07:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Tell me Frank, if I continuously attacked the liberals while praising the conservatives no matter what they did, and I claimed to be middle of the road would you think I was a liar?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2015 07:28 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Tell me Frank, if I continuously attacked the liberals while praising the conservatives no matter what they did, and I claimed to be middle of the road would you think I was a liar?


1) I said that in my experience conservatives are more tolerant than liberals

2)?

3)?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2015 05:52 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Tell me Frank, if I continuously attacked the liberals while praising the conservatives no matter what they did, and I claimed to be middle of the road would you think I was a liar?


At very least I'd say you would be deluding yourself.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2015 05:55 am
@hawkeye10,
How anyone can see conservatives as more tolerant than liberals is beyond me...although I will acknowledge that I see plenty of intolerance at the extremes of both those bases.

I also would say that in politics...a bit of intolerance for the other side's position seems to be the norm with even the most moderate of people who label themselves to be on the right or left.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2015 05:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
How anyone can see conservatives as more tolerant than liberals is beyond me...although I will acknowledge that I see plenty of intolerance at the extremes of both those bases.

I also would say that in politics...a bit of intolerance for the other side's position seems to be the norm with even the most moderate of people who label themselves to be on the right or left.

When I disagree with a Conservative, usually me and the other Conservative just state our disagreement and then agree to disagree.

When I disagree with a Liberal, many times that Liberal is still trying to disembowel me a month later.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2015 06:57 pm
@oralloy,
Disagree with a Conservative and the results tends to be that we agree to not talk about the subject anymore and continue to socialize

Disagree with a liberal and the result tends to be them deciding that they can never be seen with in 100 feet of me.

Which one is displaying more tolerance? Which way sounds like the nicer more humane way to live?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2015 07:08 am
Oralloy, Hawk…

…you guys are both conservatives…or mostly conservative.

Obviously if you disagree with fellow conservatives…the reaction will be more muted than a disagreement with a liberal.

I am sure liberals who disagree with fellow liberals find a more muted type of disagreement than they do with conservatives.

Said another way: The observations you shared are probably true…but so what. They simply show that disagreements with people with whom there is significant enmity are treated differently from disagreements with people who are more generally in line with your thinking.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 06:28:41