Zogby: Hillary Defeatable by 5 GOP Frontrunners

[no name 1]

Bubba didn't do anything to fix anything. All he did was get BJ's under the desk while the rest of the world spun on without him. I will take Bush any day over Clinton.

Those BJ's didn't kill a soul. Bush's wet-dream cost tens of thousands of lives. And we were afforded the first balanced budged in decades under Bubba. I'll take that over borrow and spend Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

Busy re-writing history, are we? That wet-dream of Bush's that cost tens of thousands of mostly innocent lives had zippo, zero, nada, zilch, nil, not a first damn thing to do with 9/11 and you know it.

As for the budget, Clinton was the first President in decades to actually reduce national debt. Starting in FY 1998, the federal budget turned from red to black. In FY 1999, the federal budget had a surplus of 123 billion dollars. In FY 2000, that surplus grew to 230 billion. They turned off the national debt clock when Clinton was President. Remember? You can deny that all you want but it remains a fact: In the last years of the Clinton administration, the federal budgets had black bottom lines. Bush changed that right quick and had them turn that debt clock on again. You really gotta get out of that bubble, Gary.

I think you are re-writing history. Clinton never balanced the budget, and he never had a surplus.

I think not. Take it from the horse's (read: CBO) mouth:

Fiscal year 2001 ended with a total budget surplus of $127 billion. This marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government has run a surplus.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/31xx/doc3152/Oct-MBR.pdf

But you keep reading that which you want to read rather than going to the source directly.

The story I cited came from treasury numbers. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I take the Congressional Budget Office over the edited publication of an anonymous web-site with an agenda (anti gay marriage, pro Iran military conflict, etc.) Whatever, Gary. As I said, you read and believe whatever floats your boat and I'll stick with plain information from direct sources such as the CBO (which is really where the rubber meets the road as it is firsthand information) and form my own opinion on that.

ah, but Gary's sources/ideas are never wrong, dontcha know!

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

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Gary, oye... Gupt stated it perfectly earlier in this post...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1361065

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.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

I'll have to give you this much: McCarthy would be proud of you.

Only, the cold war is over.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Gary, oye... Gupt stated it perfectly earlier in this post...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1361065

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.

Yes he did state it perfectly. I have no real problems with the way the left in general wants to do things, I just don't agree with them. That is an honest disagreement. However, Hillary takes these left ideas to a whole new level. That is where I get heartburn. When someone suggests that it "takes a village" to raise a child or suggests turning over the entire health care system to the government to the exclusion of any personal choice, or taking profits away from a company to fund her own pet projects or increacing taxes for the reason of social engeneering or any of the other things she wants to do I will call it as I see it. She is a danger to the very way of life we have in America. What she is suggesting is pure socialism. You just can't call it anything else.

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

When someone suggests that it "takes a village" to raise a child or suggests turning over the entire health care system to the government to the exclusion of any personal choice, or taking profits away from a company to fund her own pet projects or increacing taxes for the reason of social engeneering or any of the other things she wants to do I will call it as I see it. She is a danger to the very way of life we have in America. What she is suggesting is pure socialism. You just can't call it anything else.

Do you feel the same way about FDR and the Great Society? I don't think you'll find any reasonably minded politician, including Hillary, who believes in pure socialism - doing away with private enterprise and ownership. I know Michelle Malkin and other Right Wing pundits use such scare tactics to energize their base, but I honestly don't think it's going to work this time around with the voters. Hillary, like FDR, believes that government can do some things better than private enterprise can and her argument for change from the status quo is resonating with Americans this time around.

[GaryC 7]

When someone suggests that it "takes a village" to raise a child or suggests turning over the entire health care system to the government to the exclusion of any personal choice, or taking profits away from a company to fund her own pet projects or increacing taxes for the reason of social engeneering or any of the other things she wants to do I will call it as I see it. She is a danger to the very way of life we have in America. What she is suggesting is pure socialism. You just can't call it anything else.

Do you feel the same way about FDR and the Great Society? I don't think you'll find any reasonably minded politician, including Hillary, who believes in pure socialism - doing away with private enterprise and ownership. I know Michelle Malkin and other Right Wing pundits use such scare tactics to energize their base, but I honestly don't think it's going to work this time around with the voters. Hillary, like FDR, believes that government can do some things better than private enterprise can and her argument for change from the status quo is resonating with Americans this time around.

IMO FDR was a socialist. His programs extended the depression and only WW2 pulled us out of it. He was good at bringing the country together at a time of war but his programs were wrong. That is why most of them were found un-constitutional. The things he did during the war would have made the Bush bashers faint. Sending all the Japanese to camps, controlling the media, spying on American citizens, censoring all mail leaving the country. The list goes on and on. The great society was the worse thing this country ever had subjected on it. It made a dependant class that is still with us. If I didn't have to have my money taken from me for SS and was allowed to invest it myself I would have tripled if not more my retirement over what SS would give me. Hell, just what I will save in my 401K over the last 15 years of my working life will pass what SS will give me after close to 50 years working. You call that a good thing?

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

Some people have nothing but their SS to live on, so yeah, I'd call it a good thing.

[GaryC 7]

Some people have nothing but their SS to live on, so yeah, I'd call it a good thing.

That is their own fault. Forcing everyone into the same program is wrong. Saving for your future falls into the catagory of personal responsability. It shouldn't be something that is mandated by a government that then runs the program into the ground. What kind of sick program is it anyway? First they force you to pay into a system your whole life and then when you retire you find your getting pennies back on the dollar. In a few years (like when you retire) there may not be any SS left. I hope you are doing the right thing and have started your own 401K. Because SS isn't something you can count on to be there when your 67. Yeah, real great program.

Think about that for a minute. You are forced to pay into the system all your life and if you want to have a nice retirement you have to save for yourself anyway. Talk about double wammy! That really sucks! Especially if you consider that if you invested the money put into the SS into the stock market you would retire a millionare. But no, I have to let them take my money AND save for myself. Makes sense to me!

Edited November 28, 2007 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

A few soundbites don't equal a political philosophy. If Hillary did espouse a "broad economic vision" why is that not what is focussed on for criticism rather than a few isolated quotes?

Perhaps because the "broad economic vision" was really a bunch of rhetorical bumf saying nothing (which is par for the course for presidential candidates), but you can hardly compare her to Karl Marx based on that...

Hey at least noone's posted the "we must take things away form your for the common good" because that bald statement isn't at all a tangible statement of what she intends to do in office.

I wouldn't mind if the criticisms were based on real issues, but its all nudge-nudge, wink-wink innuendo.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

A few soundbites don't equal a political philosophy. If Hillary did espouse a "broad economic vision" why is that not what is focussed on for criticism rather than a few isolated quotes?

Perhaps because the "broad economic vision" was really a bunch of rhetorical bumf saying nothing (which is par for the course for presidential candidates), but you can hardly compare her to Karl Marx based on that...

Hey at least noone's posted the "we must take things away form your for the common good" because that bald statement isn't at all a tangible statement of what she intends to do in office.

I wouldn't mind if the criticisms were based on real issues, but its all nudge-nudge, wink-wink innuendo.

The trouble is that it isn't just a few soundbites. Whenever she opens her mouth she spouts a socialist ideal. The reason you don't hear them twice is because of the reaction she gets. But she can't seem to help herself when she gets going. Here is another "sound bite" that follows socislists ways. The internet is full of them.

Joseph Stalin: “Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division ;and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.”

Hillary Clinton: “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” (1993)

Nikita Khrushchev: “Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” (1956)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

A few soundbites don't equal a political philosophy. If Hillary did espouse a "broad economic vision" why is that not what is focussed on for criticism rather than a few isolated quotes?

Perhaps because the "broad economic vision" was really a bunch of rhetorical bumf saying nothing (which is par for the course for presidential candidates), but you can hardly compare her to Karl Marx based on that...

Hey at least noone's posted the "we must take things away form your for the common good" because that bald statement isn't at all a tangible statement of what she intends to do in office.

I wouldn't mind if the criticisms were based on real issues, but its all nudge-nudge, wink-wink innuendo.

The trouble is that it isn't just a few soundbites. Whenever she opens her mouth she spouts a socialist ideal. The reason you don't hear them twice is because of the reaction she gets. But she can't seem to help herself when she gets going. Here is another "sound bite" that follows socislists ways. The internet is full of them.

Joseph Stalin: “Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division ;and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.”

Hillary Clinton: “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” (1993)

Nikita Khrushchev: “Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” (1956)

Yeah - but there's a difference between what someone says and how it translates to what they do in power (if indeed it does at all). Disregarding the various contexts that pertains to those quotes, the Stalin quote for example has really no bearing on his record as the worst mass-murdering dictator in the 20th century.

I dunno - I'm not a Hillary fan, but I don't think its particularly honest to pick apart her candidacy based on soundbites, soundbites being disconnected from actual, tangible proposals on policy issues, and pre-election promises.

[no name 1]

That is their own fault. Forcing everyone into the same program is wrong. Saving for your future falls into the catagory of personal responsability. It shouldn't be something that is mandated by a government that then runs the program into the ground. What kind of sick program is it anyway? First they force you to pay into a system your whole life and then when you retire you find your getting pennies back on the dollar. In a few years (like when you retire) there may not be any SS left. I hope you are doing the right thing and have started your own 401K. Because SS isn't something you can count on to be there when your 67. Yeah, real great program.

Think about that for a minute. You are forced to pay into the system all your life and if you want to have a nice retirement you have to save for yourself anyway. Talk about double wammy! That really sucks! Especially if you consider that if you invested the money put into the SS into the stock market you would retire a millionare. But no, I have to let them take my money AND save for myself. Makes sense to me!

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!

So you are NOT all about personal responsibility? You know, ENTREPRENEURIAL ventures.....not relying on the rich to help you out. tsk tsk.

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

A few soundbites don't equal a political philosophy. If Hillary did espouse a "broad economic vision" why is that not what is focussed on for criticism rather than a few isolated quotes?

Perhaps because the "broad economic vision" was really a bunch of rhetorical bumf saying nothing (which is par for the course for presidential candidates), but you can hardly compare her to Karl Marx based on that...

Hey at least noone's posted the "we must take things away form your for the common good" because that bald statement isn't at all a tangible statement of what she intends to do in office.

I wouldn't mind if the criticisms were based on real issues, but its all nudge-nudge, wink-wink innuendo.

The trouble is that it isn't just a few soundbites. Whenever she opens her mouth she spouts a socialist ideal. The reason you don't hear them twice is because of the reaction she gets. But she can't seem to help herself when she gets going. Here is another "sound bite" that follows socislists ways. The internet is full of them.

Joseph Stalin: “Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division ;and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.”

Hillary Clinton: “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” (1993)

Nikita Khrushchev: “Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” (1956)

2 soundbites does not make it true.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To add to my earlier post:

Socialism is a pretty big umbrella term that covers a large range of general ideas. Communism on the other hand is a distillation of a few specific ones.

There are plenty of thriving social democracies, communist states in contrast, are rather in the minority...

If you're going to quote socialists - you aren't really serving your argument by quoting communist leaders from the former USSR, who were pretty far removed from what would be considered "mainstream" socialism. I mean, if you look hard enough - there are, believe it or not, reasonable quotes from Adolf Hitler.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Number 6

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

Some people have nothing but their SS to live on, so yeah, I'd call it a good thing.

That is their own fault. Forcing everyone into the same program is wrong. Saving for your future falls into the catagory of personal responsability. It shouldn't be something that is mandated by a government that then runs the program into the ground. What kind of sick program is it anyway? First they force you to pay into a system your whole life and then when you retire you find your getting pennies back on the dollar. In a few years (like when you retire) there may not be any SS left. I hope you are doing the right thing and have started your own 401K. Because SS isn't something you can count on to be there when your 67. Yeah, real great program.

Think about that for a minute. You are forced to pay into the system all your life and if you want to have a nice retirement you have to save for yourself anyway. Talk about double wammy! That really sucks! Especially if you consider that if you invested the money put into the SS into the stock market you would retire a millionare. But no, I have to let them take my money AND save for myself. Makes sense to me!

You'll think differently when it's one of your family members...I hope.