Zogby: Hillary Defeatable by 5 GOP Frontrunners

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's hardly the case anymore, Gary. A huge number of the mega rich are actually employees of publicly owned companies. And a good number take from you and me to make themselves rich - again, do you think the sub-prime lending crisis engineers have done this country and this economy a service? You think that CEO that golden parachute out of companies they have run into bankruptcy have done anyone but themselves a service? I sure don't. I think they ripped us all off.

Thats class envy and I don't subscribe to it.

No it isn't, Gary. It's an honest look at America today as compared to America the Great just a few decades ago. We're heading in the wrong direction with the destruction of the middle class. Public companies are being looted by a tight circle of buddies that sit on each others boards and line each others pocket at the expense of America's middle class and at the expense of America's strength. That has nothing to do with class envy and everything to do with being able to see what's going on in this day and age in the US of A.

[Cassie 8]

That's hardly the case anymore, Gary. A huge number of the mega rich are actually employees of publicly owned companies. And a good number take from you and me to make themselves rich - again, do you think the sub-prime lending crisis engineers have done this country and this economy a service? You think that CEO that golden parachute out of companies they have run into bankruptcy have done anyone but themselves a service? I sure don't. I think they ripped us all off.

Thats class envy and I don't subscribe to it. Are there crooked rich people? Sure there are. When they are caught then I say hang them by the nads. But as a group rich people and execs are the people create the jobs that allow the rest of us to make our living. Look at any third world country. You have a lot of poor people. Why? In part because there is a shortage of rich people and the companies they own. (I am not talking about the crooks, but the ones that own business' and employ other people) They are the ones that employ the rest of us. I say three cheers for the rich! I want to be one some day!

Gary, I appreciate your point of view, but I find it very ironic that you stated the above. You are very much "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and grab the American dream" type of guy -- heck, you've done it yourself, by what you have related here in VJ in different posts -- and yet it's because someone "allowed" you to do it? I thought it was all your hard work and determination. Isn't part of the American Dream making your own opportunities?? I'm confused.

Edited to add: I want you to know that I mean no disrespect with the above, Gary. I am just trying to understand how someone so fiercely independent and resistant to being dictated to by government as you are can be so tied to the idea of big business and capitalism and let yourself be dictated by them.

Anyways, I am glad I can't vote in 2008, because none of them (with possibly the exception of Mr. Obama) make me happy, and I hate choosing the lesser of multiple evils.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Cassie

[GaryC 7]

That's hardly the case anymore, Gary. A huge number of the mega rich are actually employees of publicly owned companies. And a good number take from you and me to make themselves rich - again, do you think the sub-prime lending crisis engineers have done this country and this economy a service? You think that CEO that golden parachute out of companies they have run into bankruptcy have done anyone but themselves a service? I sure don't. I think they ripped us all off.

Thats class envy and I don't subscribe to it. Are there crooked rich people? Sure there are. When they are caught then I say hang them by the nads. But as a group rich people and execs are the people create the jobs that allow the rest of us to make our living. Look at any third world country. You have a lot of poor people. Why? In part because there is a shortage of rich people and the companies they own. (I am not talking about the crooks, but the ones that own business' and employ other people) They are the ones that employ the rest of us. I say three cheers for the rich! I want to be one some day!

Gary, I appreciate your point of view, but I find it very ironic that you stated the above. You are very much "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and grab the American dream" type of guy -- heck, you've done it yourself, by what you have related here in VJ in different posts -- and yet it's because someone "allowed" you to do it? I thought it was all your hard work and determination. Isn't part of the American Dream making your own opportunities?? I'm confused.

Edited to add: I want you to know that I mean no disrespect with the above, Gary. I am just trying to understand how someone so fiercely independent and resistant to being dictated to by government as you are can be so tied to the idea of big business and capitalism and let yourself be dictated by them.

Anyways, I am glad I can't vote in 2008, because none of them (with possibly the exception of Mr. Obama) make me happy, and I hate choosing the lesser of multiple evils.

No disrespect taken, allow may have been a poor choice of words but the sentiment is the same. Business' are not there to provide jobs. They are there to make money. A job is just the effect. I know that sounds uber-capitalist but that is my view. A strong business is one that makes money and provides the rest of us jobs. The stronger the company the more people are employed and more people earn a living. I never once felt like a job was owed to me. I know I am only employed as long as the business makes money from my labors. My goal is to make myself valuable to that company so I can keep my job. It's a goal I was successful with. That is also the source of my independence. I have done what it takes to be able to go just about anywhere and earn a living. That is true freedom.

[Cassie 8]

That's hardly the case anymore, Gary. A huge number of the mega rich are actually employees of publicly owned companies. And a good number take from you and me to make themselves rich - again, do you think the sub-prime lending crisis engineers have done this country and this economy a service? You think that CEO that golden parachute out of companies they have run into bankruptcy have done anyone but themselves a service? I sure don't. I think they ripped us all off.

Thats class envy and I don't subscribe to it. Are there crooked rich people? Sure there are. When they are caught then I say hang them by the nads. But as a group rich people and execs are the people create the jobs that allow the rest of us to make our living. Look at any third world country. You have a lot of poor people. Why? In part because there is a shortage of rich people and the companies they own. (I am not talking about the crooks, but the ones that own business' and employ other people) They are the ones that employ the rest of us. I say three cheers for the rich! I want to be one some day!

Gary, I appreciate your point of view, but I find it very ironic that you stated the above. You are very much "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and grab the American dream" type of guy -- heck, you've done it yourself, by what you have related here in VJ in different posts -- and yet it's because someone "allowed" you to do it? I thought it was all your hard work and determination. Isn't part of the American Dream making your own opportunities?? I'm confused.

Edited to add: I want you to know that I mean no disrespect with the above, Gary. I am just trying to understand how someone so fiercely independent and resistant to being dictated to by government as you are can be so tied to the idea of big business and capitalism and let yourself be dictated by them.

Anyways, I am glad I can't vote in 2008, because none of them (with possibly the exception of Mr. Obama) make me happy, and I hate choosing the lesser of multiple evils.

No disrespect taken, allow may have been a poor choice of words but the sentiment is the same. Business' are not there to provide jobs. They are there to make money. A job is just the effect. I know that sounds uber-capitalist but that is my view. A strong business is one that makes money and provides the rest of us jobs. The stronger the company the more people are employed and more people earn a living. I never once felt like a job was owed to me. I know I am only employed as long as the business makes money from my labors. My goal is to make myself valuable to that company so I can keep my job. It's a goal I was successful with. That is also the source of my independence. I have done what it takes to be able to go just about anywhere and earn a living. That is true freedom.

thank you for answering me

[Peikko 1,575]

This is off topic, but I am curious how a system of super capitalism can sit in isolation without causing great harm to the individual and the poorest and weakest in society. Or rather, how anyone can support such a system if you hold a Christian/moral belief system, or wish to see a society that does have more than self interest at its heart.

To my view, government should regulate the areas of society that do not sit well in a profit driven system simply because this just doesn't serve people well. It appears to me that some people see the profit motive as the be all and end all, the driver of invention and can't seem to see how this could ever be harmful or destructive. However, time and time again this need for profit over and above every consideration proves to be a bad thing for real people when it's applied to the areas such as health care and food production.

As an example, take drug companies. When profit is the sole motive that drives these companies, little things like ensuring that drugs do the task for which they are commissioned and in such a way that it doesn't compromise the health of the person taking the drug, do not seem to figure very highly on the scale of desirables for creating drugs. Only diseases that will effect large numbers of people get any real attention (there's only profit in selling drugs on the large scale). If you are unlucky enough to be born with or contract one of the low incidence health issues, well so sad too bad. Everything takes a back seat to making a fast buck. And why wouldn't it when the companies sole raison d'etre isn't to make people better/healthier but to create as big a profit as possible for the company and its investors? The regulations that are supposed to protect people are bypassed or ignored because capitalism appears to be more important than people.

So, while I can understand that pure socialism sits in the craw (indeed, it's going to the opposite end of the scale and that doesn't make for a good answer either because of the problems that are inherent with any 'totalitarian' system) I don't understand why capitalism can't be tempered with some social programs that will ensure that the needs of people don't get completely lost to the needs of business.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't understand why capitalism can't be tempered with some social programs that will ensure that the needs of people don't get completely lost to the needs of business.

It is tempered. Pure capitalism doesn't exist outside of textbooks. Never has.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, yes, but a little more tempering wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion. What I meant really was that some people call Hilary a 'socialist' but is she really? She doesn't strike me as socialist unless you take socialism to be capitalism being tempered by social programs.

Be that as it may, I don't support any of the candidates so it's not an argument for or against Hilary per se, but rather wondering why any attempt at social program is so heinous.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't support any of the candidates so it's not an argument for or against Hilary per se, but rather wondering why any attempt at social program is so heinous.

The entire debate is about settling on a spot we like on the continuum between capitalism and socialism. We use the terms but they're quite meaningless, because no one of any importance is actually suggesting pure capitalism or pure socialism. Who, of any import, has suggested that we scrap all social programs? Social Security is a social program and I'm not aware of a single prominent conservative politician running for elected office today who would suggest we scrap it. The debate isn't about social programs per se, it's about particular social programs proposed by *she-who-shall-not-be-named* and their details. That's what many find unacceptable.

[no name 1]

Democratic Candidates Look Good in Latest 2008 Trial Heats

Hold significant leads over Thompson, Romney; slim edges over McCain

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton with a slim but not statistically significant advantage over both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain in head-to-head matchups for the 2008 general election for president. Clinton has much more substantial leads over former Sen. Fred Thompson and former Gov. Mitt Romney. Sen. Barack Obama also has significant leads over Thompson and Romney, but essentially ties with Giuliani and McCain.

The poll of 897 registered voters nationwide was conducted Nov. 11-14, 2007.

Clinton -- the dominant front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination -- would appear to have at least a slight advantage over any Republican candidate among registered voters if the election were held today. She has a five-point edge over Giuliani (49% to 44%) and a six-point edge over McCain (50% to 44%), but neither lead is statistically significant. Clinton runs much more strongly against the lesser-known Thompson (53% to 40%) and Romney (54% to 38%).

Gallup previously tested these same matchups in June (Clinton versus Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) and July (Clinton versus Thompson). Since then, Clinton's standing against Giuliani, McCain, and Romney has remained about the same, while she now fares much better against Thompson. In July, 48% of registered voters preferred Clinton and 45% Thompson.

source

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't support any of the candidates so it's not an argument for or against Hilary per se, but rather wondering why any attempt at social program is so heinous.

The entire debate is about settling on a spot we like on the continuum between capitalism and socialism. We use the terms but they're quite meaningless, because no one of any importance is actually suggesting pure capitalism or pure socialism. Who, of any import, has suggested that we scrap all social programs? Social Security is a social program and I'm not aware of a single prominent conservative politician running for elected office today who would suggest we scrap it. The debate isn't about social programs per se, it's about particular social programs proposed by *she-who-shall-not-be-named* and their details. That's what many find unacceptable.

Oh, I hope Gary reads this response. You hit the nail right on the head.

[GaryC 7]

This is off topic, but I am curious how a system of super capitalism can sit in isolation without causing great harm to the individual and the poorest and weakest in society. Or rather, how anyone can support such a system if you hold a Christian/moral belief system, or wish to see a society that does have more than self interest at its heart.

To my view, government should regulate the areas of society that do not sit well in a profit driven system simply because this just doesn't serve people well. It appears to me that some people see the profit motive as the be all and end all, the driver of invention and can't seem to see how this could ever be harmful or destructive. However, time and time again this need for profit over and above every consideration proves to be a bad thing for real people when it's applied to the areas such as health care and food production.

As an example, take drug companies. When profit is the sole motive that drives these companies, little things like ensuring that drugs do the task for which they are commissioned and in such a way that it doesn't compromise the health of the person taking the drug, do not seem to figure very highly on the scale of desirables for creating drugs. Only diseases that will effect large numbers of people get any real attention (there's only profit in selling drugs on the large scale). If you are unlucky enough to be born with or contract one of the low incidence health issues, well so sad too bad. Everything takes a back seat to making a fast buck. And why wouldn't it when the companies sole raison d'etre isn't to make people better/healthier but to create as big a profit as possible for the company and its investors? The regulations that are supposed to protect people are bypassed or ignored because capitalism appears to be more important than people.

So, while I can understand that pure socialism sits in the craw (indeed, it's going to the opposite end of the scale and that doesn't make for a good answer either because of the problems that are inherent with any 'totalitarian' system) I don't understand why capitalism can't be tempered with some social programs that will ensure that the needs of people don't get completely lost to the needs of business.

I have no conflict with my Christian values at all. Capitalism requires self reliance and will ultimately help everyone.

As far a Clinton goes, she wants to rip the guts out of capitalism. She is the enemy of our system. Yes Steven, I sound parinoid. But that is truly what I think. I think she is a wolf in sheep's clothing and is deceiving her supporters. I pray that she never gets the chance to show you just how bad she will be for this country.

[no name 1]

Streisand backs Clinton's presidential bid

Calls the former first lady a 'powerful voice for change'

WASHINGTON - Barbra Streisand, who hedged her bets months ago with donations to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, has settled on one presidential candidate.

It's Hillary.

"Madame President of the United States ... it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," Streisand said in a statement released Tuesday by the Clinton campaign. "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success."

The Oscar-winning actress and singer is an FOB — Friend of Bill Clinton — and the endorsement is hardly surprising. In Hollywood, as in politics, timing is everything, and Streisand's endorsement comes one day after another entertainment superstar, Oprah Winfrey, announced she would campaign for Clinton rival Barack Obama.

"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal health care and rebuilding a strong economy. After eight long years, the public will once again have faith in their government," said Streisand, a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates.

In the statement, Hillary Clinton said she was honored for the support.

"Barbra has used her immense talent to be an advocate for truth, justice, and fairness and I deeply appreciate her confidence in my candidacy as we work together to change the direction of our nation," Clinton said.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Streisand backs Clinton's presidential bid

yeah, that should make people swing their vote to hillary

[no name 1]

Streisand backs Clinton's presidential bid

yeah, that should make people swing their vote to hillary

####### for tat, my friend....