Hillarycare part deux

[Dechristo]

cradle to grave

[fig8]

Right, because universal health care equates to the govt running every aspect of our lives. Exactly what the AMA wants you to believe. You are a good lamb. More fear, fewer questions.

 

The left's "solution" to EVERY problem is a new/bigger/more-expensive government program.

 

The newest and most expensive program I'm aware of, is BushCo's ware in Iraq. I don't believe it is a solution proposed by the left to anything. Borrow and spend, that is BushCo's answer.

 

At least Clinton paid as he went.

[fenderfour]

... at least he's persistent.

[dt_3pin]

The simple story being told to oneself here seems to be that anyone that opposing the nationalization of healthcare is doing so out of callous disregard for the less fortunate.

 

That's the modus operandi of every card-carrying Democrat. If you oppose their position, then you are a "bad person" - fill in loaded derogatory slur here:

 

1) oppose illegal immigration, affirmative action programs, hate-crime legislation, etc: you are a racist

2) oppose gay marriage, gay couples adopting, etc: you are a homophobe

3) oppose social programs: you are callous and care about yourself only

4) oppose tax increases: you're a rich capitalist who cares only about yourself

5) if you oppose abortion, stem-cell research, etc: you are a religious fanatic

 

It goes on and on. Basically, if you oppose anything on their agenda, then they make attacks on you as a person - the politics of personal destruction. Smacks right out of the Soviet Commie strategy - just one step short of calling all opponents bourgeosie capitalists and enemies of the state.

 

 

Man, yer posts are an eternal well of sweet, sweet irony

Good on you for staying the course

 

[No. 13 Baby]

That's the modus operandi of every card-carrying Democrat [. . . and a bunch of whining]

 

The clarion call of every card-carrying conservative:

"I'm an overfed, overprivileged heterosexual white guy. I got mine handed to me - screw all the rest of you!"

 

[ClimbingPanther]

the call to arms of every card-carrying liberal:

I can't tell white from yellow but I can tell right from wrong

[Adam13]

KKK- (and by the way I can't escape the irony of that being the abbreviation for your title)

Why the hell are you complaining about being branded a specific title for opposing something, It's the #1 tactic of your prescious President and his lackies. Say the war on Iraq is going bad and you hate America, or even better oppose gitmo and you're a fucking terrorist.

 

[ClimbingPanther]

don't fight nonsense with more nonsense, you dork

[Adam13]

Oh and you are either a crazy Religious person or just plain fucking stupid if you oppose stem-cell research.

[ClimbingPanther]

where did taht come from?

[Adam13]

It wasn't directed at you it was one of KKK's points against liberals

[ClimbingPanther]

incidentally, i oppose stem cell research

[Adam13]

Do you have any intelligent reason for opposing the use of something that would otherwise be wasted, to save human life, or are you just stupid?

[Fairweather]

Did anyone watch that ABC special last night on how utterly horrible Canada's health care system is? And how illegal for-profit clinics are sprouting up all over the country? One of them owned and operated by Canada's own version of Surgeon General!

 

Long waits and shitty care.

 

Thank God Hillary Rhodam hyphen Clinton is unelectable.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Fairweather

[underworld]

how can you possibly believe abc when mr moore says otherwise???

 

[ClimbingPanther]

Did anyone watch that ABC special last night on how utterly horrible Canada's health care system is? And how illegal for-profit clinics are sprouting up all over the country? One of them owned and operated by Canada's own version of Surgeon General!

 

Long waits and shitty care.

 

Thank God Hillary Rhodam hyphen Clinton is unelectable.

 

dude, she's ahead in the polls (although that doesn't really mean much) and she's not the only dem with a plan, so why are you so pumped?

[Dechristo]

The London Times

January 26, 2007

 

The vaulting ambition of America's Lady Macbeth

by Gerard Baker

 

Hillary Clinton's shameless political reconstructive surgery

 

You can measure the scale of an American president's troubles by the number

of skutniks he deploys during his State of the Union address.

 

Every year during his big set-piece speech to Congress, the president will

digress from the main thrust of his remarks to offer fulsome praise to some

member of the audience in the gallery. This person will have been carefully

selected in advance by the president's speechwriters as an exemplar of some

virtue and placed there for the purpose. The television producers will have

been alerted in advance so that at the right moment, as the president talks

about the heroics of this American Everyman, he or she can rise

self-consciously and receive the praise of a grateful nation. This now

obligatory part of a constitutional ritual is called a skutnik after the

name of the first person so honored.

 

One January evening in 1982, Lenny Skutnik, a government employee, dived

into the freezing waters of the Potomac River to rescue a victim of a plane

crash. Two weeks later, during his second State of the Union address, with

the US mired in recession, Ronald Reagan had Mr. Skutnik sit in the gallery

and paid a moving tribute to his heroics.

 

This week, for his penultimate State of the Union, Mr. Bush had a veritable

galaxy of skutniks... soldiers, military people, a firefighter.

Whatever you might feel about the wisdom of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy or the

feasibility of his plans to wean Americans off petrol, you can't help but

stand and cheer the good works of a decent person.

 

But there was something unusual about this year's constellation of ordinary

American heroes, beyond the sheer numbers. Usually the skutnik is a

presidential privilege. But so intense already is the competition for the

2008 presidential race that others have muscled in.

 

And so Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had a skutnik of her own. She arranged

for the son of a New York policeman sick with lung cancer to be there. As it

happened, the man's father died that day, and the son's grief became a sad

and very visible coda to the event.

 

This little incident, the skillfully choreographed exploitation of a human

tragedy, the cynically manipulated deployment of public sympathy in service

of a personal political end, offered a timely insight into the character of

the politician who this week launched the most anticipated presidential

election campaign in modern history.

 

There are many reasons people think Mrs. Clinton will not be elected

president. She lacks warmth; she is too polarizing a figure; the American

people don't want to relive the psychodrama of the eight years of the

Clinton presidency.

 

But they all miss this essential counterpoint. As you consider her career

this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be

struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable

way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is

literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here,

finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician's trade,

the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical

conclusion.

 

Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat reparative and

unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who

aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue

their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried

to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have

made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take

time out from work to rear their children as women who stay home and bake

cookies.

 

Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and

expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.

 

To grasp the scale of the transfiguration, it is necessary only to consider

the very moment it began. The turning point in her political fortunes was

the day her husband soiled his office and a certain blue dress. In that

Monica Lewinsky moment, all the public outrage and contempt for the sheer

tawdriness of it all was brilliantly rerouted and channeled to the direct

benefit of Mrs. Clinton, who immediately began a campaign for the Senate.

 

And so you had this irony, a woman who had carved out for herself a role as

an icon of the feminist movement, launching her own political career, riding

a wave of public sympathy over the fact that she had been treated horridly

by her husband.

 

After that unsurpassed exercise in cynicism, nothing could be too expedient.

Her first Senate campaign was one long exercise in political reconstructive

surgery. It went from the cosmetic - the sudden discovery of her Jewish

ancestry, useful in New York, especially when you've established a

reputation as a friend of Palestinians to the radical: her sudden message of

tolerance for people who opposed abortion, gay marriage, gun control and

everything else she had stood for.

 

Once in the Senate she published an absurd autobiography in which every

single paragraph had been scrubbed clean of honest reflection to fit the

campaign template. As a lawmaker she is remembered mostly, when confronted

with a President who enjoyed 75 per cent approval ratings, for her infamous

decision to support the Iraq war in October 2002. This one-time anti-war

protester recast herself as a latter-day Boadicea, even castigating

President Bush for not taking a tough enough line with the Iranians over

their nuclear programme.

 

Now, you might say, hold on. Aren't all politicians veined with an

opportunistic streak? Why is she any different? The difference is that Mrs.

Clinton has raised that opportunism to an animating philosophy, a P. T.

Barnum approach to the political marketplace.

 

All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary

price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is

a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who,

stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more

than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego.

 

 

[Adam13]

Yeah those jokes from the 90's about people supporting President Clinton................and her husband are about to get alot less funny for republicans.

[ClimbingPanther]

uh, the article... etc etc etc.

 

 

her life has been one big PR show for the last umpteen years. she's the most shrewd chameleon I've ever seen, and I'm seriously impressed by how well she understands mass public opinion manipulation.

[olyclimber]

A THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT

[ClimbingPanther]

what are the lights saying to you?

[lI1|1!]

don't you people ever go home?

[ClimbingPanther]

home is where you make it

Edited September 18, 2007 by ClimbingPanther

[Fairweather]

I hope she is the Dem nominee. She'll be easy to beat. Obama, slightly less so. IMO, the two front runners are the two softest candidates on the D-side. Man, do I love the primary system!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I hope she is the Dem nominee. She'll be easy to beat. Obama, slightly less so. IMO, the two front runners are the two softest candidates on the D-side. Man, do I love the primary system!

 

Easy to beat? I don't know about that. Especially with the non-descript crowd running against her.