While perusing the silly attempt Hillary Clinton made to ingratiate herself to a southern church audience by adopting (playfully, I’m going to assume…except for the last part which appears to be a genuine attempt at phoniness ) a tortured southern and grammatically-challenged accent, I happened to be reading some of the comments that other listeners had posted after hearing to it themselves and I was reminded of a couple of things that had slipped my mind about just how high-handed and arrogant and determined she is about imposing her will upon the American people.
I’m sure most around here remember that she commented that she wanted to “take things from [us] for the common good”–a comment likened around here to simple taxation but which seemed to me to be much more confiscatory and socialist in its implications. Why else not just say that she wanted to raise taxes?
And how she has said that she wants to take private (oil) company profits and use them how she (or the government) sees fit.
But do you remember the aspect of her failed health care proposal that would have made it a federal crime to use one’s own money to pay for a doctor’s care, and which would have made both patient and doctor subject to prison terms?
To me, this is how determined she is to keep evil rich (i.e., affluent) people from getting things the hoi polloi can’t afford (therefore guaranteeing equal deprivation for all–a communist hallmark if ever there was one), and to force us all to be subject to…and limited by…what some uncaring (and most likely financially-strapped) governmental beaurocracy determines is best for us in terms of health care.
Now, this board did not exist at the time (or at least I was unaware of it if it did) so I didn’t have access to the variety of knowledgeable people that there is to be found here, and who can sometimes offer insights I was unaware of that might change my mind. So here is the chance for someone to fight ignorance by showing me how my perception of her is off base…provided, of course, that it actually is.
(And just for the record, I probably won’t participate much in this thread as I’m looking mainly for information (and, frankly, exposition, if her comments are indeed as I recall them) and not necessarily to engage in an argument.)
Did you put this in the forum you wanted it to be in? The Pit is great for collecting anti-politician screeds, but not always so hot as a information source, and I’m not seeing anything in your post which is inappropriate for GD.
Unless those oil companies put the oil into the ground in the first place, they’re exploiting (“developing”, if you prefer) a public resource they acquired through government subsidy (the 1872 Mining Law requires the government to sell mineral rights way below their actual value, but only to large companies). So the oil profits are “private” and “theirs” in pretty much the same sense that a welfare queen’s government check is her private profits.
Of course Hillary might not be explaining it so bluntly.
I’m afraid I might have been mistaken about Hillary. I assumed that with her toughness (and in my mind, ruthlessness), she would slay any and all comers easily. But she seems to be blowing it.
This latest business of elbowing her way into Obama’s limelight, trapsing down to the bridge as a desperate afterthought, and having to drag Bill with her might have been her undoing. According to Eugene Robinson on Meet the Press, the church across the street from Obama, where she wanted to speak, didn’t especially want to hear her without him.
She’s […fake Southern accent…] fixin’ to go down like a corncob in a’ outhouse.
Well, we do prefer that posts to GD be based on something resembling facts rather than the fevered false nightmares of the extreme Right.The following, for example was not merely taken out of context, but completely distorted from her actual comment:
Following a statement by another commentator that the Bush tax rollbacks were excessively geared toward helping the rich (a challengeable proposition, but the basis for the comment), Ms. Clinton indicated that the people at the very top of the tax scale should, indeed, return some of the monies they had gotten with excessive tax breaks to the population. This was pretty much immediately misquoted as saying the government should tax more taxes from all citizens for the benefit of the government.
It’s kind of sad that our OP is parroting the distorted line rather than presenting the facts, but that is more acceptable here than it would be in GD.
First of all, she can no more be a “dictator” than Bush can. Presidents really don’t have a lot of power over economic policy unless Congress goes along. Tax increase? Not without approval from Congress. Socialize medicine? Not without approval from Congress.
Give us the quote and show us it isn’t different in kind from what the government does now. You seem to be implying that she wants to take all of the oil company profits. No way. And again, she can’t do a thing along those lines w/o Congress’ approval.
I for one am dubious about the prospect of Hillary as a Socialist Dictator, mostly because of her predilection for pantsuits instead of leather apparel with whips as accessories (although this could change following the primaries).
Yeah, over the last half-dozen years we’ve seen how much fun that can be.
For some reason I am reminded of Jim Coates, a pitcher who used to throw beanballs and then manage to avoid the bench-clearing brawls that ensued.
I agree that Hillary has shown evidence of an arrogant, deceptive and manipulative personality. How much different she might be than any other major presidential candidate is debatable, though she comes off worse because of her high capacity for self-righteousness.
The Socialist Dictator stuff seems pretty silly.
Maybe I imagined this, but weren’t some right-wing board members cackling recently about claims on the Left that Bush, exploiting fears of terrorism, might suspend elections to stay in power?
As I said: I’m open to ignorance-fighting here. Did she, or did she not, say she wanted to “take things from [us] for the common good?” While I’m sure she would try to explain this comment in some more palatable way after the fact, I’ve never heard before that this isn’t what she actually said.
And besides, what about the main thrust of my OP, which was that she favors sending people to jail for trying to get better health care than the government would provide?
When I am speaking with someone who uses dialect, I tend to fall into it myself.
I do make an effort to not do so with people of color, however, lest they take offense.
I’m aware of that. By ‘dictator,’ I was speaking of her own predelictions and the lengths to which she would go to impose her will on an unwilling populace–not that she could manage to become a dictator in actual point of fact.
Of course I’m not implying she would take all their profits…although I’m sure she’d like to. It’s obvious, even to one so mentally challenged as myself, that some profits would have to remain in order for oil companies to stay in business.
Sometimes you really do get on a high-horse, there, Johnster.:rolleyes:
Actually, I’d be curious to hear about the factual basis of this and rather shocked if it were true. I’m all for basic universal healthcare but can’t imagine anyone seriously proposing a system in the US that didn’t allow choice for those who would want to pay for it.
But Hilary, socialist dictator? C’mon. If by some miracle she were elected into office, she’d have to end up gravitating towards the center. Between the corporate interests and Congress, there’s no way she’d get away with that crap.
Then again, when Bush won and I tried placating my friends with this logic (that American politics is naturally tempering and centrist), I was wrong. But I feel the populace will allow the country to drift to the right more freely than it will to the left.
Eh. Anyone seeking to be president is likely to be power-hungry. Hillary has demonstrated her ability to restrain herself considerably while in Congress.
That didn’t answer my question. Oil companies have gotten huge tax breaks, and given their level of profits, they probably deserve a tax increase. But give us the context and the details of this “fact” about Hillary that you are claiming.
This is the Pit, and your OP was idiotic. I call 'em as I see 'em.
If a mod would be so kind as to change the the title of the OP to “would-be socialist dictator”, perhaps the thread will get more on the track I intended when creating it.
So what are you saying, then, SA? I haven’t seen that good a demo of backpedaling (as post #15) since Chris took up stunt-biking.
It sounds to me like (a) Hilary is proposing taxation-and-benefit programs you don’t agree with, to a greater extent than Mr. Bush, for example has, and (b) this furnishes you with an opportunity to malign her by misrepresenting her.
It’s the Pit; you’re privileged to rant. And people like John are privileged to call you on it, by citing the facts to make you look foolish. Perhaps draining off the venom and saying why you think her ideas are bad (personally, I rather like the idea of Big Oil being taxed more than the present Administration, made up of former oilmen and conglomerate heads, has seen fit.
“Socialist dictator” my middle-aged ass! She’s a Presidential hopeful with proposals that don’t appeal to you. Just as, no doubt, some of the Republican hopefuls have proposals that won’t appeal to me.
) a tortured southern and grammatically-challenged accent, I happened to be reading some of the comments that other listeners had posted after hearing to it themselves and I was reminded of a couple of things that had slipped my mind about just how high-handed and arrogant and determined she is about imposing her will upon the American people.