Comments on: Of Liberal “Silencing” and Clinton “Ickiness”

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:27:25 +0000

Good point, Corwin. Very good point. I’ll have to track down the Camille Paglia piece where she said something similar about Ms. Hillary.

By: corwin

corwin — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:11:57 +0000

I recall reading a cartoon in Playboy decades ago.It showed a balding,middle aged man having dinner with a much younger blonde women who was gazing adoringly.The caption?”After I end poverty and clean up the environment,I wany to do something about fixing our legal system.”
Sen Clinton’s proclomations have alaways reminded me of that.

By: KenB

KenB — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:37:24 +0000

Shamus says, “No one with a shred of integrity would back (Hillary).” I am hardly a Hillary fan, but Shamus’s statement is going too far. I recall the Louisana gubernatorial election in which the voters elected a known crook to keep David Duke out of office: “Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard.”

Not for a moment do I mean to imply Obama is on par with David Duke. I do not believe that. But I can imagine reasons to favor Hillary despite her propensity for corruption. For example, that she would likely better defend this country against its enemies.

But then, I’m voting Republican, so I don’t have to resolve the dilemma personally.

By: heliotrope

heliotrope — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:27:05 +0000

Oh, my! It must be dreadful to be in the closet for Hillary. There should be sensitivity training for liberals who aren’t on the same page. How did the poor dear miss the epiphany express? She must really be quite daft.

By: American Elephant

American Elephant — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:50:47 +0000

Poverty is measured as the bottom quintile in income. It will always exist as long as quintiles exist. Hence the decades old quagmire known as the “War on Poverty”.

Its time for a war on stupidity.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:40:47 +0000

Carrie (and, by her account, her pro-Obama colleagues’) program for America:

end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, do more to deal with our stubborn problems of poverty, inequality and inequities, restore some sense of a positive reputation for our nation in its internal and external affairs, provide health care for all and restore faith in our beliefs in inclusion, justice, and social equity and opportunity

Are these people nuts? Let’s take it point by point.

end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home

We all want that. (I know I do.) So what is she really saying? Do it *prematurely*, ensuring al Qaeda victory and genocide to follow?

do more to deal with our stubborn problems of poverty, inequality and inequities

Which inequities? “Do more” of what? There is an inherent conflict between ending “poverty” and ending “inequality”. The only way to achieve true economic equality of result, is to drag everyone down to the same level of poverty – a la socialism. If you want to truly end poverty, raising living standards even for the poorest of the poor, you must turn to laissez-faire capitalism. Only a rising tide can lift anyone’s boat.

restore some sense of a positive reputation for our nation

Because liberating 50 million Muslims from hideous tyranny, and protecting all civilization in the process, isn’t enough to burnish our reputation? good?

provide health care for all

Paid for by whom? Paid for how? And what level of health care? I.e., paid for with what damage and destruction to our health care system?

restore faith in our beliefs in inclusion, justice, and social equity and opportunity

Restore **faith in our beliefs** in XYZ? What does that even mean? Forcing people to believe a certain way (or to say they do), even though they don’t? Is this woman pure mush – or is she an actual fascist?

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:27:01 +0000

Great comments!

By: Dave Eaton

Dave Eaton — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 03:27:59 +0000

To be silenced seems merely to mean that most of your colleagues don’t agree with you. That’s a very cheap kind of silencing.

She should be willing to speak of her support for Hillary, and if they hoot at her, give them the finger. Silence this, beeyotch.

By: Steevo

Steevo — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:18:29 +0000

I think her feeling “silenced” only reflects her self-centered disposition. When she feels pain, she’s a victim. If she makes it to power, in her mind she’ll be deserved and all the more determined having the right to do as she sees fit.

By: shamus

shamus — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:58:31 +0000

Clinton’s intelligence, competency, and qualifications certainly are suspect. No one with a shred of integrity would back her.

By: North Dallas Thirty

North Dallas Thirty — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:43:17 +0000

Imagine that — the institution and the people who have fought most vehemently to ensure that skin color always trumps intelligence, competency, and demonstrated performance in qualifications……are backing Obama.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:41:56 +0000

Exactly. I can’t imagine that a 3rd Clinton term would mean anything other than scandal after scandal and investigation after investigation. I can’t trust her considering that couple’s history of renegging on promises as soon as the water gets too hot.

As for being in the minority…it builds character and it ought to happen to everyone. If you don’t have the spine to stand up for what you believe even though no one around you seems to share those beliefs then I just don’t have any respect for you. I wish everyone had to do something akin to coming out. As it is we are a nation of crybabies who think freedom of speech means freedom from criticism.