The left reason to hate Hillary (long)(Part 1)

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

I think people on the left hate Bush for the wrong reason, the war. Instead they should hate him for globalism, lack of jobs, and spending money overseas (read: giving money to US corporations doing business overseas).

Likewise, the people on the left (yes, I mean Democrats) hate Hillary for the wrong reasons: namely, her nasty disposition (monster?). Instead, Hillary should be hated (and feared) for her resolute support of socialism. For those of you on the left I suggest--respectfully suggest--that you don't look at socialism as a contrarian view to the (often presumed) unrelenting greed and cold heartedness of the right wing. Instead look at it for what it is, socialism! Socialism is the control of you--and your family (and not just your money).

The Context of Government
You may like socialism because you think you will be taken care of; or because you like to get things for free. Everyone wants to get things for free. Black slaves got free food, free room and board, and more job security than they could ever want. Of course that's a very offensive 'spin' on a horrible situation. We would probably agree, you and I, that slavery was horrible because of the violence and brutality and the separation of families. We would say that the free food and free rent were substandard, and the concept of "free" was heavily tainted by a lack of choice. The context of 'free' matters--in socialism you get what you pay for, minus the 'context of government.'

Implicit in the context of slavery is a lack of choice which causes an exploitation (and outright theft) of labor. Ironically, if you're a member of the left then you disagree that people should have a choice at all. You believe that society has a right to confiscate labor not just for the common good but as a moral 'cover fee.' Leftists have quite a few justifications for "enslaving" Americans. I won't list them all*, but if you watch the Simpsons, during every town meeting a nameless female character will shout the refrain "what about the children", which is a parody of a common, (normally non-violent) method of controlling a society (see The Crisis, Waco).


It takes a village
Because the republicans tend to dwell on the 'financial exploitation of labor' aspect of socialism, leftists see the right wing's opposition to socialism as purely a matter of greed (whereas libertarians see it as a matter of slavery). However, if one were to read Hillary's book "It takes a village" one can get a much better idea of what socialism is and what Hillary hopes to achieve. It also helps if you have read Orwell's 1984. First, I'll describe the 'false' vision many leftists have of Hillary's intent. Leftists believe that Hillary is concerned that adults are ignoring children, children who are lost and wandering through the streets. Leftists believe that children, our children, are starving to death right before our very eyes!

Leftists think our children become violent because we don't spend enough time with them. They conclude that, "Parents must work, there's nothing we can do about that. So, we need more grandparents and other village elders to help us raise our children." The rhetoric continues, "Teachers know best, they're specialists in children. Children need nutritious food (in order to learn), a safe place to sleep (in order to learn). We need more teachers, we need to spend more money on education, because education is not just the education of children." (see the link to the daycare article in part 2). Education means parents need to learn to trust and obey government. Does anyone remember Bill's school program to "hire volunteers" to teach children to read? (obviously the teachers were too busy raising the children.)


In opposition to the government control of children, there are movements that vilify childcare (and promote homeschooling). They cite a few reasons for opposing child care, but the issue relevant to this article is the claim that if taxes were lower both parents (but specifically, mothers) would not have to work; which would allow one of the parents to stay home to raise the children. Of course this argument assumes that the child's parents are better suited to raise children than teachers or day care workers. Hillary does not assume that. Don't forget the good old days: "breasts aren't for feeding babies, baby formula is for feeding babies." (Then 4 out of 5 doctors smoked Camels. Today, parents have gone the way of the titty!)

"It takes a village; parents need help--what's wrong with that?" Well, first, that's not what Hillary is saying.

Hillary's vision does not promote mothers caring for children as much as it promotes "the state" caring for children and by proxy, controlling the parents. Hillary believes that the only good things in life come from government. When Obama spoke about the accomplishments of Dr. King, Hillary's response was to admonish us with her clarification that none of Dr. King's vision could have been accomplished without the action and approval of President Johnson. (a man whose nuts were often in conflict with his pants)

This is not my wild, conspiracy theory; this is from her mouth, her words. Read her book. She sees children as property of the state, because 'that' is socialism and she 'is' a socialist. The way things are defined, the way things are measured, and the way things are prioritized all add up to 'something'. In this case that something probably doesn't match the vision leftists have of helping children, however, it does match the paranoid-sounding, albeit legitimate definition of socialism.

End Part 1 (please report misspellings and errors in grammar to the appropriate authorities, or reread it when you're sober)

*Technically, leftists claim to prefer a 'true' democracy. In a true democracy the majority wins. We do not have a true democracy, we have a representative republic. Here in the US people don't (usually) directly vote on laws (our representatives vote for us) and when we elect politicians we use the electoral college.

Not that long ago, Al Gore won the popular vote (for president) but lost the electoral college vote. The electoral college is not a system that was snuck into place by Republicans, it's a system that was defined in the constitution and has been in place since 1804 after being modified by the 12th amendment. In spite of being in place for so long, many leftists tried to blame the "vast right wing conspiracy" for Gore's loss. Because leftists tend to be young (and ignorant about all things boring and political) they believed the 'spin', they believed that: the electoral college was a contrivance invented specifically to cheat Democrats and elect Republicans. What followed was a small (I'd say tiny) movement calling for true democratic voting, where the winner of the popular vote is always the winner of the election.

My reason for bringing this up is that recently, during the Nevada caucuses, Hillary Rodham Clinton won the popular vote, but Barack Hussein These-are-not-the-droids-you're-looking-for Obama won the delegate vote. You should know that the rules for this "democrat" caucus are created and enforced by democrats! So if the popular vote was really a good thing, one would think that the democrats would use the popular vote whenever they could. FYI, Hillary did complain about winning the popular vote, but losing the delegate vote. If I'm not mistaken, there's also a case where (gay?) leftists in California are trying to overturn a democratic vote that rejects homosexual marriage.

I've been overloaded with information and anecdotes concerning a related topic: voting machines, but since this is not my day job I'll save that topic for another time. I will however, give you a bit of homework to finish off the popular (true democracy) vote versus a representative republic: research the phrase "tyranny of the masses." (if you misspell it you'll come upon some interesting porn--that's not a promise.)

[Gina_Marie]

I think people on the left hate Bush for the wrong reason, the war. Instead they should hate him for globalism, lack of jobs, and spending money overseas (read: giving money to US corporations doing business overseas).



I think people hate him for more than just the war. Being a fucktard is reason enough in my book. But we have a slew of other issues, shady dealings, oil, stroking big business.

Isnt Obama more left than Hillary?

[William Haskins]

hmmm...

i can appreciate that this took some time to write, but it's sort of a buffet of things that are often discussed around here and offers little in the way of new information. and it's so ham-fisted that it fails to function as any impassioned persuasive essay.

ms. clinton certainly incorporates some socialistic elements in her platform, but it's ultimately still to the right of a host of social democracies in europe. so i really can't buy the "she's a socialist" meme.

the democratic party is free to organize and carry out their primaries and caucuses however they'd like. it has no bearing on the electoral college or vice-versa.

the rest of it is probably already in play in another thread or twenty.

but welcome to the boards and i look forward to more (hopefully rawer and shorter) posts.

i did get a kick out of the johnson "nuts and pants" reference, though it's helpful to remember, there were also "bunghole" issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_faux-pas%2C_gaffes%2C_and_unfortunate_incidents

[Cranky]

I think people hate him for more than just the war. Being a fucktard is reason enough in my book. But we have a slew of other issues, shady dealings, oil, stroking big business.

Isnt Obama more left than Hillary?

Can we PLEASE have people desist from using variations on the word "retarded" to describe someone? Criminey! Are we writers, or are we not? Surely we can do better.

*Of course, everyone can do what they like, within the rules, I'm just stating my displeasure once again for the record.*

Carry on.

And yes, Obama is more leftist than Hillary. At least that's my impression.

[eldragon]

I remember when new members couldn't post in politics and current events, nevermind stop in just to start threads.


What should be call you?

I mean, CABNU-DSN14180226562 is catchy, but I might get you mixed up with CABNU-DSN14180226561, who joined yesterday.

[billythrilly7th]

I remember when new members couldn't post in politics and current events, nevermind stop in just to start threads.


What should be call you?

I mean, CABNU-DSN14180226562 is catchy, but I might get you mixed up with CABNU-DSN14180226561, who joined yesterday.

Comparing CABNU-DSN14180226562 to CABNU-DSN14180226561 is an insult to CABNU-DSN14180226561, not to mention CABNU-DSN14180226562, CABNU-DSN14180226563, CABNU-DSN14180226564 and CABNU-DSN14180226565.

[eldragon]

Comparing CABNU-DSN14180226562 to CABNU-DSN14180226561 is an insult to CABNU-DSN14180226561, not to mention CABNU-DSN14180226562, CABNU-DSN14180226563, CABNU-DSN14180226564 and CABNU-DSN14180226565.
Yeah, but at least CABNU-DSN14180226563 understood that nobody ever reads long-winded, opinionated copy and paste messages anyway.


And then we heard about CABNU-DSN14180226565 having that unfortunate accident. Quite unpleasant to talk about still.

[dolores haze]

Can we PLEASE have people desist from using variations on the word "retarded" to describe someone? Criminey! Are we writers, or are we not? Surely we can do better.

*Of course, everyone can do what they like, within the rules, I'm just stating my displeasure once again for the record.*



For the record - I agree with you 100%.

[billythrilly7th]

Yeah, but at least CABNU-DSN14180226563 understood that nobody ever reads long-winded, opinionated copy and paste messages anyway.


And then we heard about CABNU-DSN14180226565 having that unfortunate accident. Quite unpleasant to talk about still.

All true.

And don't even get me started on CABNU-DSN14180226566.

[William Haskins]

All true.

And don't even get me started on CABNU-DSN14180226566.

ol' CABNU-DSN14180226566...

that kid's all right...

[Soccer Mom]

I"m just gonna call him (her?) 6562 for short. Or maybe R2D2. That's kinda catchy.

[dgiharris]

Being a fucktard is reason enough in my book. But we have a slew of other issues, shady dealings, oil, stroking big business.

I dunno, I kinda like fucktard. Has a certain feel about it. Rolls right of the ol' tongue.

As for the post. Interesting comments. Some decent points but overall I think it was a bit too far. Hillary would not usher in an era of Socialism.

US policy, culture, etc is like a giant ocean-linear cruising along. We have some inertia built up and no matter how much of a fucktard :) the captain of the boat is, 4-8 years isn't long enough to crash us into an iceberg and kill us all.

granted, we can spill a few million tons of oil and wreck havoc on some seagulls and seals, but for the long run, things will be o.k.

Every presidency, it seems the other side always screams :e2woo:
"The sky is falling, we're all gonna die..." But by and large, we will be o.k.

Mel...

[robeiae]

Cabnudsn...sounds Norwegian.

Personally, I like it. I mean, in comparison to "BillyThrilly"? "Soccer Mom"? "William Haskins"? Come on...

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

i can appreciate that this took some time to write, but it's sort of a buffet of things that are often discussed around here and offers little in the way of new information. (alternatively, I considered tying my horse to her, but apparently that's been done before as well!)


and it's so ham-fisted that it fails to function as any impassioned persuasive essay.

You're too kind, really. I'm used to much less civil critiques. This was an off the cuff response to one of those email chains. It's not something I would post here, hoping to inspire writers (of all people) to a new political vision. It's here because I've made some friends (fans of AW) happy by preaching to the choir.
(it would have been much shorter if i could have found the tongue icon. My "George Bush Sucks" article only had 3 words!)


While you seem inexplicably immune to my condemnation of each and every festering component of Hillary's monstrous cankle supported visage, her supporters (cankle-ettes we call them) are weeping in despair as they teach the Hilldabeast to light a cigar (yes that cigar) whilst explaining to the dumb beast that fire is good, and oil company profits are bad. Take that Hillary supporters! :tongue (I found the tongue icon! More impassioned, but still not ready... I agree)

ms. clinton certainly incorporates some socialistic elements in her platform, but it's ultimately still to the right of a host of social democracies in europe. so i really can't buy the "she's a socialist" meme.

Heh, you said meme. I love Drew Carey, but I didn't know Meme was a socialist like Hillary. But now that you mention it, I do see the similarities in their make-up. Ah, hmmm, anyway, that's the problem with socialism even in tiny doses, it's hard to undo. Realistically, the only plausible way we could become a socialist nation is one small step at a time. Starting with the concept of "free."


the democratic party is free to organize and carry out their primaries and caucuses however they'd like. it has no bearing on the electoral college or vice-versa.

You skimmed that part too fast, I think. But that's ok, it was a point made "for the record."

the rest of it is probably already in play in another thread or twenty.

True.

but welcome to the boards and i look forward to more (hopefully rawer and shorter) posts.

Thank you, I've befriended many a smoking infant in my time--so, I had a feeling we'd get along. I've made a few pithy posts here, but I warn you part 2 of this screed is pending. Some of it's a little better, and I think some concepts are new. But part2 cites web URL's; I hate doing that (too much work for the reader--they should just take my word as truth, right?).

i did get a kick out of the johnson "nuts and pants" reference, though it's helpful to remember, there were also "bunghole" issues.(He only used his bunghole as a "known reference." It explains a lot and it's also the reason I'm in a 12 step program to try and forget Johnson's bunghole and Lady Bird's as well!)

PS I always thought "fucktards" is what Paris wears to perform "Slut Lake."(no it's not that funny, I just wanted to coin the phrase, "Slut Lake." And you wonder why I'm anonymous...)

[William Haskins]

i think with some work, you might be interesting and occasionally funny.

stick around.

[BenPanced]

I prefer "dipshit". Just because I get to type or say "shit". And the alliteration of the short i sound. And it's an accurate description of Shrubya.

[Cranky]

I prefer "dipshit". Just because I get to type or say "shit". And the alliteration of the short i sound. And it's an accurate description of Shrubya.

Dipshit is a highly underrated insult. :D

P.S. "Slut Lake"...not bad. LOL!

[billythrilly7th]

i think with some work, you might be interesting and occasionally funny.

stick around.

I'd like him to be trained on the quote function please.

And no alternating colors please. Tabula Rasa almost put me in an early grave.

[William Haskins]

valid point.

[Magdalen]

If I have any vote here, I'd say call him "nude" because it starts out CABNUDSN which I pronounce Cab Nude son or Cab (K)Nudeson and nude is buried in there and easy to type.

[Joe270]

I like the guy. His rebuttal was quite funny and to the point.

Plus, Hillary is a socialist. Admittedly so.

I just wish Cabnu would lose some of the numbers. I was never good at math.

Besides, it took me six months to figure out Dymytry.

[Voyager]

If I have any vote here, I'd say call him "nude" because it starts out CABNUDSN which I pronounce Cab Nude son or Cab (K)Nudeson and nude is buried in there and easy to type.

That's it, he/she is forever Naked Taxi from this day forth.

[MacAllister]

*sigh*

Is this a good time to bring up how pleased I was to put a Hillary 2008 bumper sticker on my jeep? I wish she were a GREAT deal more to the left, but people in Hell wish for ice-water, too, as my mom always said.

[Joe270]

Damn, Mac, and you're my hero. (Heroine, excuse me.)

Now I must attack you with the ferocity of a rabid wolverine on steroids.

I will gnaw and snarl and. . .

Appologize profusely, begging like a whelp to not get Hello Kittied or Sparkled once again.

[Medievalist]

Likewise, the people on the left (yes, I mean Democrats) hate Hillary for the wrong reasons: namely, her nasty disposition (monster?). Instead, Hillary should be hated (and feared) for her resolute support of socialism. For those of you on the left I suggest--respectfully suggest--that you don't look at socialism as a contrarian view to the (often presumed) unrelenting greed and cold heartedness of the right wing. Instead look at it for what it is, socialism! Socialism is the control of you--and your family (and not just your money).

Great. Now I've got Stupid all over me...

[Joe270]

Hey, we already went down that road yesterday. Old hat.

[small axe]

i can appreciate that this took some time to write, but it's sort of a buffet of things that are often discussed around here and offers little in the way of new information. (alternatively, I considered tying my horse to her, but apparently that's been done before as well!)


I'll confess, at first I wasn't sure CABNU-DSN14180226562 was making his/her point ...

But when the responses in not only blue, but diminuative blue kicked in ... aw well, ya had me at itty-bitty blue! :)

[eldragon]

*sigh*

Is this a good time to bring up how pleased I was to put a Hillary 2008 bumper sticker on my jeep? I wish she were a GREAT deal more to the left, but people in Hell wish for ice-water, too, as my mom always said.


I have a feeling this is going to be a pretty good day.

[Soccer Mom]

Now Slut Lake would have been a user title. I think you're a keeper, Naked Taxi (but I wish you might consider changing your user title to something a little more user friendly. My itty brain goes boom at all the numbers).

[NikeeGoddess]

is it only the healthcare mandate issue that suggests she's a socialist or is there something else?
and is it the same people who make this suggestion that suggest we should have prayer in schools and instill christian thought in our policy making?

it might be refreshing if the candidates could use words like dipshit and fucktard. tell us how you really feel approach. jerry springer could moderate the debates. or maybe judge judy.

i don't know - 6 more months of campaigning!!! longer than the oj trial. longer than a season of the apprentice: that other sensationalized televised job interview. but i do believe that if hillary can take 6 more months of bashing that she deserves to be commander in chief.

[MacAllister]

I think Joe would look terribly fetching in a sparkly Strawberry Shortcake avatar...

[robeiae]

I don't like "fetching" as an adjective, personally.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

I dunno, I kinda like fucktard. Has a certain feel about it. Rolls right of the ol' tongue.

I lean toward dipshit, myself.(so says my t-shirt)



As for the post. Interesting comments. Some decent points but overall I think it was a bit too far. Hillary would not usher in an era of Socialism.

US policy, culture, etc is like a giant ocean-linear cruising along. We have some inertia built up and no matter how much of a fucktard :) the captain of the boat is, 4-8 years isn't long enough to crash us into an iceberg and kill us all.

Yes, I addressed this briefly before, but I think it deserves a little more...
...yes, it's only 4-8 years, however, the problem is in the "undoing." For example, once government employees are given retirement packages they can't be taken away. I know we're talking about the federal government, but the end results are easier to see in the big cities or state level. While self-employed and entry level folks are struggling to earn a check, in many cases, government employees expect or are guaranteed pay raises regardless of the current economy. So (property) taxes go up as the political promises are kept. I have yet to have a job where I was guaranteed a raise--so I see these guarantees as very unfair. I consume the same amount of city and state services every year, yet my taxes go up, mainly to accommodate waste, corruption and commitments to the bureaucracy. And even on a rare occasion when anyone tries to undo it and give us even the smallest tax break what happens?

The "fed" is much worse because it's nationwide (a much bigger scale), so the hiring and firing itself costs millions. Sometimes it's almost cheaper to keep the obsolete program going--remember, in some cases even if they stop working, we keep paying.

You should know that Obama wants to 'commit' almost a trillion dollars to eliminate world hunger. Once people become dependant on the money given to them by demagogues, stopping is difficult if not cruel. (it's like declawing a cat and then kicking it out of the house.)


granted, we can spill a few million tons of oil and wreck havoc on some seagulls and seals, but for the long run, things will be o.k.

That's a nice analogy, but I'm sure you're now on a PETA list of subversive optimists.


Every presidency, it seems the other side always screams :e2woo:
"The sky is falling, we're all gonna die..." But by and large, we will be o.k.
Mel...

I can see why some people may think I'm of the "other side." However, I'm a liberal in the old, traditional, liberty sense; not the new "pseudo-gay-Jesus" pacifist, pets are the same as children and god is a grape, sense.

Besides, Al Gore insists that we're all doomed, and GW says they're coming to get us. So it's pretty much the consensus that we're doomed.

[MacAllister]

Hmm. I'm a liberal in the new, "God is a pseudo-gay-grape," pets are much easier than children but both are important responsibilities, neo-early-Marxist, sense. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here answering to that description.

Care to be even more insulting to your co-community members, there, CABNU-Mouthful-of seemingly-pointless-numbers?

[Medievalist]

Yes, I addressed this briefly before, but I think it deserves a little more...
...yes, it's only 4-8 years, however, the problem is in the "undoing." For example, once government employees are given retirement packages they can't be taken away.

Ah, yeah, they can be. My father's state pension from New Hampshire was taken away--the pension fund was emptied.

My mother's federal pension disappeared in the early 1980s, because there were more retirees than funds, so they "settled" with each pensioner by sending them a check for a few hundred dollars, depending on years of service and pay grade.



I can see why some people may think I'm of the "other side." However, I'm a liberal in the old, traditional, liberty sense; not the new "pseudo-gay-Jesus" pacifist, pets are the same as children and god is a grape, sense.

I'm too annoyed right now to try to explain just how moronic, and offensive, you've been. You need to go read the Newbie's Guide (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66315) right now.

[William Haskins]

if he starts in on straight white men, i'll sue the goddamn pants off the internet.

[MacAllister]

Oh crap. Haskins, you're white?!

[Medievalist]

if he starts in on straight white men, i'll sue the goddamn pants off the internet.

Haskins, you know, you kinda rock :D

[robeiae]

Oh crap. Haskins, you're white?!
I believe he was defending ME!

Chivalry is not dead...or maybe it is.

[MacAllister]

I believe he was defending ME!

Chivalry is not dead...or maybe it is.Ah-HA, okay. That makes better sense.

*whew*

I had a very disorienting moment, there.

[sandyn]

Might this guy have been abducted by aliens, or perhaps a participant of a government experiment? Might explain the nude part, as well as the long-winded verbage and loooong name...;)

[robeiae]

Might this guy have been abducted by aliens, or perhaps a participant of a government experiment? Might explain the nude part, as well as the long-winded verbage and loooong name...;)
"MacAllister" isn't that long of a name...

[sandyn]

"MacAllister" isn't that long of a name...

Err..did not mean Mac. I meant the CABNU guy... Silly you!:D

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

Hmm. I'm a liberal in the new, "God is a pseudo-gay-grape," pets are much easier than children but both are important responsibilities, neo-early-Marxist, sense. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here answering to that description.

Care to be even more insulting to your co-community members, there, CABNU-Mouthful-of seemingly-pointless-numbers?

Wow! I didn't expect this...

It's a curious thing. I say "all the idiots must leave the room" and the idiots sit there confused whilst the non-idiots assume a position of righteous indignation. But in this case, there was no invective. Yes, those who know CABNU-DSN14180226562 know I can Terminator like. But in here, I am like Terminator II "no causalities".

I never said there was anything wrong with being a neo-liberal. So, I'm not sure how saying that I'm an old style liberal is an insult to new (self-identified) style liberals--I didn't say anything negative about people who think Jesus is gay, or any other belief, I only said that that's not me. (thank you for your neo-liberal tolerance)

I will admit that I think some of new tenets of neo-liberalism (progressivism, whatever) are inscrutable to me, but I'm not the one who defined them. There are people who believe animals are better than people. How is my stating that I'm not one of them, in any way an insult to those people or their beliefs? If it was that pejorative, why do you identify with it? I think I'm detecting some self-esteem issues. (i've watched several episodes of "In treatment," I think that more than qualifies me as a licensed therapist--at least on the internet)


I was in the middle of crafting a response to your first post... perhaps I should "file it away," in respect for your delicate sensibilities?(in review, some of the comments I made concerning your jeep are quite rude!)

Actually, on a more serious note, this is why I couldn't be a neo-liberal (progressive) if I wanted to--too many opposing factions with no respect for each other.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

Ah, yeah, they can be. My father's state pension from New Hampshire was taken away--the pension fund was emptied.

My mother's federal pension disappeared in the early 1980s, because there were more retirees than funds, so they "settled" with each pensioner by sending them a check for a few hundred dollars, depending on years of service and pay grade.


That's good and bad. It's bad because it drops the credit rating and it's a sign that the system is breaking down, and of course it's never a good thing to take away money when people are dependant on it. It's good because maybe it will prevent the gov from making commitments beyond their budgets.



I'm too annoyed right now to try to explain just how moronic, and offensive, you've been. You need to go read the Newbie's Guide (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66315) right now.


I'm annoyed and offended that you're annoyed and offended without offering me any explanation.

[Medievalist]

I don't like "fetching" as an adjective, personally.

Well, no, but you'll note that it's a present participle, and can't be an adjective since it's modified by an adverb :D

[robeiae]

Flawed sentence structures are not my concern.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

is it only the healthcare mandate issue that suggests she's a socialist or is there something else?
and is it the same people who make this suggestion that suggest we should have prayer in schools and instill christian thought in our policy making?


The healthcare is probably the most expensive, but the child care program is the most "nefarious." I address that in part 2.

As far as I know this has nothing to do with prayer in schools. (I hope by saying that I haven't somehow added to the current anti- CABNU-DSN14180226562 conflagration.)

[MacAllister]

Wow! I didn't expect this...I did. And I could explain precisely why you've received the response you seem so surprised by. But you're making no attempt to actually listen to anyone here, so why on earth would I bother?

It's a curious thing. I say "all the idiots must leave the room" and the idiots sit there confused whilst the non-idiots assume a position of righteous indignation. But in this case, there was no invective. Yes, those who know CABNU-DSN14180226562 know I can Terminator like. But in here, I am like Terminator II "no causalities". No one needs invective to be patronizing and condescending. Frankly, I'm a bit perplexed at what on earth the above paragraph is even supposed to mean, and the missing sentence-bits and switching of words like "causalities" for -- what...casualties, perhaps? Help me someone, I haven't seen TII in something like twenty years -- doesn't help anyone's comprehension at all.

I never said there was anything wrong with being a neo-liberal. So, I'm not sure how saying that I'm an old style liberal is an insult to new (self-identified) style liberals--I didn't say anything negative about people who think Jesus is gay, or any other belief, I only said that that's not me. (thank you for your neo-liberal tolerance) Not that there's anything wrong with it. Why, some of my best friends are . . .

I will admit that I think some of new tenets of neo-liberalism (progressivism, whatever) are inscrutable to me, but I'm not the one who defined them. There are people who believe animals are better than people. How is my stating that I'm not one of them, in any way an insult to those people or their beliefs? I'm perplexed as to how it's everyone else's fault that you can't understand basic tenets of progressivism or even basic good manners in a new community.

If it was that pejorative, why do you identify with it? I think I'm detecting some self-esteem issues. (i've watched several episodes of "In treatment," I think that more than qualifies me as a licensed therapist--at least on the internet)
That's just downright snotty, and disingenuous as well.

I was in the middle of crafting a response to your first post... perhaps I should "file it away," in respect for your delicate sensibilities?(in review, some of the comments I made concerning your jeep are quite rude!)
I'm getting awfully tired of you already. Snide remarks like this don't help that situation. If you're looking for a light, bantering sort of a tone, you've missed pretty badly.

Actually, on a more serious note, this is why I couldn't be a neo-liberal (progressive) if I wanted to--too many opposing factions with no respect for each other.
I don't give a flying you-know-what about your personal politics. I DO care that you comport yourself a good deal more carefully if you're to remain a member of this community.

Since you seem especially challenged with regard to gentle hints and not-so-subtle directives, let me spell it out for you:

You've barged quite clumsily into a room on this board where there's a good deal of very heated discussion, usually originating from a place of some degree of knowledge of the other posters based on the years they've put in here already. You did said barging with a ham-handed "look at me" post, rather like a precocious but rude child in a room full of adults having a serious conversation. When anyone attempts to engage you in real dialogue about that ridiculous opening essay which is, honestly, barely coherent and only marginally readable in the first friggin' place, you respond with a self-referential directive to go back and read the damn thing again. "I address that in part II" indeed. Give me a break.

You've ignored pretty much anything anyone has bothered to say to you, refused to engage in any actually meaningful conversation beyond "it's so because I think it" which, frankly my friend, isn't going to cut it in here for five more minutes.

You're coming across rather like a shallow lightweight who doesn't or can't read. I'm sick of it. I'm not inclined to subject you to anyone else here for very much longer unless you can actually say something real, and very soon.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

Comparing CABNU-DSN14180226562 to CABNU-DSN14180226561 is an insult to CABNU-DSN14180226561, not to mention CABNU-DSN14180226562, CABNU-DSN14180226563, CABNU-DSN14180226564 and CABNU-DSN14180226565.

DSN14180226564 is actually my mother's maiden number! I thought it was better than using my middle number, or just being DSN14180226560.jr It's not a big deal, even people without pin names have pin numbers (little 4 digit things). (true story, because of my Black accent, it took me forever to learn to say pen correctly. So a pin name was inevitable.)

Oh and, sorry, I didn't realize I was breaking protocol by not posting in the newbie groups. Um, speaking of protocol, is it ok to ask eren_dari if she will marry me and be Mrs. EDCABNUDSN4180226562? (is that picture really you Eren?)

[Joe270]

I think Joe would look terribly fetching in a sparkly Strawberry Shortcake avatar...

You wouldn't dare.

[Medievalist]

You wouldn't dare.

Joe, guy, don't go there . . . .


Too late

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

I've not said, nor intended to say anything to or about anyone here as rude as what you've said to me. With the exception of posting in the "deep end of the pool," none of what you said about my behavior is true or justified. Nothing I wrote targeted any individual here. What you've insulted is not my position, but my personality.

"If you're looking for a light, bantering sort of a tone, you've missed pretty badly."

Well, I can only try. It does bother me that this was so unexpected. I'm just thankful it has never happened before, so I doubt it warrants too much more introspection on my part.

You insist that I've been given "hints;" until now, I was actually under the impression that I was welcome here. This is your board, I will not assume a right to assert my opinion, not even in defense. I do see your hint and I'm taking it. I intended on complimenting the board in my reply to your bumper sticker post (back when I thought a light, bantering sort of tone was possible). The truth is I enjoyed it while it lasted, it's a great board--an addiction waiting to happen. (good bye)

[MacAllister]

Look, if I wanted you gone, and you were truly unwelcome, you'd be gone.

All I'm saying is there's a way to discuss as part of the community, and to honestly engage, and so far you've missed.

It may well be that this just isn't a good fit for you. So far you come across as lecturing and not all that well informed. We expect real conversation. Links, citations, sharp observations, and candor, to back up whatever point you're trying to make.

Some of us do that better than others. If you're honestly interested in trying, then great. Please do. People have honestly been trying to help you, and help your transition into this community and specifically into this room - and so far, you've just blown us all off.I've not said, nor intended to say anything to or about anyone here as rude as what you've said to me. With the exception of posting in the "deep end of the pool," none of what you said about my behavior is true or justified. Nothing I wrote targeted any individual here. What you've insulted is not my position, but my personality.

"If you're looking for a light, bantering sort of a tone, you've missed pretty badly."

Well, I can only try. It does bother me that this was so unexpected. I'm just thankful it has never happened before, so I doubt it warrants too much more introspection on my part.

You insist that I've been given "hints;" until now, I was actually under the impression that I was welcome here. This is your board, I will not assume a right to assert my opinion, not even in defense. I do see your hint and I'm taking it. I intended on complimenting the board in my reply to your bumper sticker post (back when I thought a light, bantering sort of tone was possible). The truth is I enjoyed it while it lasted, it's a great board--an addiction waiting to happen. (good bye)

[Joe270]

Cabnu, you're going down a road I've traveled.

Take it easy. I get your humor, but humor is tough, and often it takes a bit of a reputation for people to assume you meant something to be funny.

Folks here don't know you yet. Give them some time to get to know you.

Shorter posts might help, too.

But messing with Mac and Medi won't work out well for you.

[Joe270]

See? Don't mess with Mac. She has superpowers.

[MacAllister]

Howzzat stinger, Joe? ;)

[rugcat]

Some of us do that better than others.Why, that's a whole other thread with great possibilities.

[SpookyWriter]

Howzzat stinger, Joe? ;):roll:

[Joe270]

Howzzat stinger, Joe?

Apparently missing. I gotta come up with a new sig line.

What? Et tu, Spooky?

[SpookyWriter]

Apparently missing. I gotta come up with a new sig line.

What? Et tu, Spooky?You've gotta love Mac's sense of humor. I'm going to have a hard time taking you seriously until she changes you back. :tongue

[Joe270]

Hell, no one ever took me seriously before, anyway.

[InfinityGoddess]

I love Care Bears. :D Had one while I was growing up.

[Joe270]

Now I'm in hell. IG is sleeping with me.

Spooky, shoot me now. Please, shoot me.

[kimmeunier]

I've not said, nor intended to say anything to or about anyone here as rude as what you've said to me. With the exception of posting in the "deep end of the pool," none of what you said about my behavior is true or justified. Nothing I wrote targeted any individual here. What you've insulted is not my position, but my personality.

"If you're looking for a light, bantering sort of a tone, you've missed pretty badly."

Well, I can only try. It does bother me that this was so unexpected. I'm just thankful it has never happened before, so I doubt it warrants too much more introspection on my part.

You insist that I've been given "hints;" until now, I was actually under the impression that I was welcome here. This is your board, I will not assume a right to assert my opinion, not even in defense. I do see your hint and I'm taking it. I intended on complimenting the board in my reply to your bumper sticker post (back when I thought a light, bantering sort of tone was possible). The truth is I enjoyed it while it lasted, it's a great board--an addiction waiting to happen. (good bye)
I know how you feel, so before you go hear me out. I have only been a member of this forum for less than six months. As far as posting work for critique, contests and information this is an awesome place to do so. However, I was told a month or so ago that my opinions were not welcome, that I would make enemies with my political opinion. That has not happened. People are very passionate on politics here. I don't eat, sleep and breath them, I just watch with a careful eye. We are all entitled to our opinion, hence "Freedom of Speech" so please don't take it personally. I had to learn that the hard way.

[InfinityGoddess]

Now I'm in hell. IG is sleeping with me.

Spooky, shoot me now. Please, shoot me.

Actually, my favorite stuffed toy to sleep with was a blue dinosaur that I'd dress up in a handkerchief. :P You're pretty safe.

I still have that blue dino, btw; the Care Bear (who was known as Tenderheart) is collecting dust in my parents' attic.

[Joe270]

You abandoned me, IG?

In a cold, drafty attic in New Jersey? NEW JERSEY!!!

[SpookyWriter]

Now I'm in hell. IG is sleeping with me.

Spooky, shoot me now. Please, shoot me.I already used up my hunting license this year. Catch me in the fall.

[billythrilly7th]

I already used up my hunting license this year. Catch me in the fall.

Spooky, have you eaten tonight?

I hear the soup kitchen is serving "Clam Surprise" tonight. Go get it.

[SpookyWriter]

Spooky, have you eaten tonight?

I hear the soup kitchen is serving "Clam Surprise" tonight. Go get it.Is that like rat in my wall surprise?

[InfinityGoddess]

You abandoned me, IG?

In a cold, drafty attic in New Jersey? NEW JERSEY!!!

I thought bears had fur? o.O

[sassandgroove]

is it only the healthcare mandate issue that suggests she's a socialist or is there something else?
and is it the same people who make this suggestion that suggest we should have prayer in schools and instill christian thought in our policy making?
-snipNikee- will you clarify please? I don't follow who the 'same people' are that you are referring to or how it relates to the first sentence. Are you asking if the people who suggest prayer in schools are the only people who see Hillary as socialist?

If that is the case, then I disagree. The groups may coincide, but aren't exclusive. Personally, I think if Christian prayers should be allowed in school, so should Buddist, Islamist, and any other ists prayers should be allowed too, including excusing oneself from prayers. But I fail to see what the two (seeing Hillary as socialist and right wing christians) have anything to do with each other. eta are mutually exclusive.
I know how you feel, so before you go hear me out. I have only been a member of this forum for less than six months. As far as posting work for critique, contests and information this is an awesome place to do so. However, I was told a month or so ago that my opinions were not welcome, that I would make enemies with my political opinion. That has not happened. People are very passionate on politics here. I don't eat, sleep and breath them, I just watch with a careful eye. We are all entitled to our opinion, hence "Freedom of Speech" so please don't take it personally. I had to learn that the hard way.Kim- (And mac correct me if I am wrong) But I don't think it is the opinion so much as how it is expressed. At AW we are to respect each other. So we must show respect with those we disagree with, but it is ok to disagree. Posting in PC&E isn't easy, though. :)

[Craig Gosse]

Personally, I think if Christian prayers... :)

Right on the money!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Don't know, maybe it's just me, but 'make no law', to me, means 'make NO law'. Not pro, not con, not... anything. Don't make it mandatory, don't ban it - just stay the heck out of religion, in all it's many incarnations, entirely.

But, again - hey, maybe that's just me.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

I was actually looking for criticism on how to write better (political) articles, but to those of you who posted sympathetic or otherwise empathetic replies there's no doubt in my mind that debating and discussing politics with you would be pleasantly addictive. :e2BIC:

However, my topic was Hillary and socialism. Fending-off-personal-attacks is not the same as discussing politics, and it certainly doesn’t provide useful advice on how to be a better writer. I loathe tyranny. For me this is irony; an unnecessary confirmation of what life would be like under Hillary and the bourgeoisie. I quote the newbie guide:
"If it happens that there's someone you just cannot get along with, and your blood pressure rises every time you see them post -- then use the ignore function. You can find the ignore feature in your User CP (User Control Panel), at the top left, in the dark blue menu bar. "
...unless of course you're the owner, or a friend of the owner in which case you can be as rude and hostile as you feel is necessary (i.e. "a bully").

Mac, I'd prefer to stay and ignore you. The majority of people in the majority of forums--not owned by you--would also ignore you. I wouldn't have to respond to your abusive and petty dribble and address the odd, inane accusations you've made. More importantly, I wouldn't be forced to discuss the topic you want to discuss. To be honest, given your behavior and what I've read so far, I think you are ill prepared to debate your own topic of exclusion versus inclusion (your essay reads as a smarmy, confused justification for political correctness and a defense of censorship). And since you yourself can't abide by it, it's somewhat of a moot point I think.

Nothing about you makes me think you're above censorship. However, I'd rather not accuse you of something you haven't done, especially not censorship.

Accordingly, but in spite of my expectations, if I am allowed and moved to respond to your accusations should I post the entire response within this existing thread, start a new thread, or what? If it's a new thread, what should the title be?

I await your micromanagement. (Signed, CABNU AKA Naked Taxi, et al)

[Robert Toy]

:popcorn:

[Craig Gosse]

http://forums.multiplay.co.uk/images/smilies/ditto.gif

[ColoradoGuy]

Accordingly, but in spite of my expectations, if I am allowed and moved to respond to your accusations should I post the entire response within this existing thread, start a new thread, or what? If it's a new thread, what should the title be?

I await your micromanagement. (Signed, CABNU AKA Naked Taxi, et al)
I'm not the micromanager, and believe me, neither is MacAllister--she enjoys chaos. To answer your question, though, I'd post what's on your mind in this thread. But a word of advice--try not to be so prolix. It's easier for us liberal socialists to follow your arguments.

[Bravo]

i dont know what "prolix" means, but if it means be more concise and/or use a bigger font then CG is completely right.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

[...]--try not to be so prolix. It's easier for us liberal socialists to follow your arguments.

"The true evil of political correctness is that it necessitates long, fully inoculated, pre-defended positions. Any flaw becomes a distraction, and any error is vilified as evidence of vile and malevolent intent." CABNU 2008:Lecture: (thus, I speak thusly)

As far as "liberal socialists," brother, you'll understand if I don't touch that just yet.

[ColoradoGuy]

But what, exactly, is "political correctness"? It strikes me as a slippery term indeed.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

i dont know what "prolix" means, but if it means be more concise and/or use a bigger font then CG is completely right.

It's hard to make a point using words and concepts that are normally found in books published for the sole purpose of rhyming the word cat.

However, if you insist! I'll change my name to Foghat, and restrict myself to the 3 chords of modern political discourse: "you suck," "you're a bigot," "you're hypocrite."

Of course that means we won't be able to use the clever slogans found on bumper stickers and t-shirts, but if it means being concise, I'll make a small effort to make smaller efforts.

*If you don't know who Foghat is, it means you're not a baby boomer or you don't play guitar hero III. Either way, it's just one more reason my group is better than yours! (just kidding-it'll take a while to rebuild my sense of humor):e2headban

[Craig Gosse]

...]

HIGHLY disrespectful!

Perhaps you meant to be sarcastic/ironic... if so, please remember, 'tone of voice' does not translate to the written medium unless you so describe it.

As discussed elsewhere, 'word choice' is much more effective... even if it means you can't post the first thoughts that spring to mind....

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

But what, exactly, is "political correctness"? It strikes me as a slippery term indeed.

I'll spare you the novella; When I first bought a house in a White neighborhood, PC prevented the bigots there from warning me that I shouldn't buy a house there. Instead, I had to try to look past the fake politeness, trying to find a "hint" that would prevent me from making a dreadful mistake, while at the same time assimilating into White society. That's on the personal level; I moved in and I regretted it, I feared for my family and our safety. (Now I have to deal with hidden ageism--you can't debate it if it doesn't exist)

As bad as it is on a personal level, on the societal level it's much worse. I'm not sure what the word limit is on being concise, so I'll just assume that I've made my point.(not about being PC, but about being concise);)

[Craig Gosse]

The above was the most severe example of an 'off the cuff' post I've ever done - an attempt, perhaps useless, to get a mitigating word in before certain, inevitable, consequences...

"Gee, Craig - what we do has consequences...?"

Why, yes, Billy! Life has consequences! However, human beings, fallible creatures as we are, often do not see those consequences... or, perhaps worse, we incorrectly evaluate what those consequences will be. The fact that each of us, having our own specific and unique view of the universe through our own, highly-limited perspective, based on current level of knowledge and...


Aw, heck.

Billy, we's all dumb, just in different directions.



(*Grin*)
C. Gosse, with apologies to Master Wm. Shakespeare.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

HIGHLY disrespectful!


You sir, have misquoted me! What I wrote was "[...]," not "...]." That's exactly how rumors get started. Clearly, you owe me an apology.(...or a $5,000 prostitute, whichever you have handy):e2brows:

[Rolling Thunder]

Are you here for discussion, Bernie, or here to simply troll?

[Craig Gosse]

You sir, have misquoted me! What I wrote was "[...]," not "...]." That's exactly how rumors get started. Clearly, you owe me an apology.(...or a $5,000 prostitute, whichever you have handy):e2brows:

THAT WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT! I DEMAND A RECOUNT! I NEVER INHALED! LOOK AT ALL THE CHAD!

http://www.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1986/05/19860503.gif

[ColoradoGuy]

I'll spare you the novella; When I first bought a house in a White neighborhood, PC prevented the bigots there from warning me that I shouldn't buy a house there. Instead, I had to try to look past the fake politeness, trying to find a "hint" that would prevent me from making a dreadful mistake, while at the same time assimilating into White society. That's on the personal level; I moved in and I regretted it, I feared for my family and our safety. (Now I have to deal with hidden ageism--you can't debate it if it doesn't exist)
So you made a bad real estate decision? You still haven't told me what "political correctness" is.
As bad as it is on a personal level, on the societal level it's much worse. I'm not sure what the word limit is on being concise, so I'll just assume that I've made my point.(not about being PC, but about being concise);)
You can be concise without being overly gnomic with a strong whiff of bombast. No, I don't understand your point. I gather from your opening post that you somehow blame Hillary and colleagues for this state of affairs, whatever that is? So as Rllg asks, are you here to debate or to declaim? Because we like reasoned debate--got any of that?

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

Are you here for discussion, Bernie, or here to simply troll?

My thread, my topic, I'm replying to everyone even if it's off topic, so I'm hardly a troll.

You on the other hand have added nothing useful to my thread... I'm not sure if I can do this, but it's worth a try...

Plonk!

PP the Bernie thing, tsk, tsk you've just violated one of the few universal rules on the Internet (haven't you?)

[ColoradoGuy]

My thread, my topic, I'm replying to everyone even if it's off topic, so I'm hardly a troll.
Well, no--it's not your thread. Here at AW we have a policy that the opening poster does not own the thread or the conversation.

[Rolling Thunder]

Yeah. I'm voting troll.

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

So you made a bad real estate decision? You still haven't told me what "political correctness" is.

I'd really rather not debate people I find obnoxious--you dismissed one of the most poignant events in my life as a "bad real estate decision." LOL, that was perfect--I honestly couldn't ask for a more 'inappropriate,' non-PC response. But see, your honesty lets me know I don't want anything to do with "you."


You can be concise without being overly gnomic with a strong whiff of bombast.


First, thanks for gnomic (a new word) and bombast (a word I'll use more often). And in addition to tone, we're also smelling posts, interesting. :e2moon:
Unfortunately, it just may be the case that I can't be concise without being overly gnomic. Maybe I'm not worthy of your tutelage, maybe you'll never read my books or magazine articles. Isn't that ok?



No, I don't understand your point. I gather from your opening post that you somehow blame Hillary and colleagues for this state of affairs, whatever that is? So as Rllg asks, are you here to debate or to declaim?

You're not even reading my posts how can I debate you? "I gather from your opening post..." No, PC has nothing whatsoever to do with my thread. It's off topic, and as a moderator... (never mind.)

No, you "gathered" incorrectly--I don't blame Hillary for my plight, not even close. I was just answering your question, but trying not to get even more off topic. If you want to start another thread about what is PC I'd be glad to join you "over there" or not.

I can accept that my article was too long, and if you don't feel it's worth the time to read, that's fine too. But that should mean, you don't post to the thread. Why bother to comment on something you haven't read? How is this thread of interest to you? Who's really the troll here?


Because we like reasoned debate--got any of that?

We? Before we define "we," can we please define moderator? Until then, are you here for discussion, ColoradoGuy, or here to simply troll?
If you're here for discussion, the topic is Hillary and socialism, if the background post is too long for you to read, then we're not going to have a lot to discuss.

[Craig Gosse]

*Ducks and covers*

[CABNU-DSN14180226562]

Well, no--it's not your thread. Here at AW we have a policy that the opening poster does not own the thread or the conversation.

...and you want me to debate you? AND not be wordy? How?

The point is, I posted a legitimate topic that I started, as opposed to what trolls do, which is to drop into the middle of 'a' thread and interject off topic comments, especially provocative one liners. Oh, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me the URL to that policy? *It doesn't matter one way or the other, but I'd like to see it. (Or maybe it's a secret policy?)

*Um, there is a much bigger forum out there called Usenet. Of course here, you are free to set policy that is different or even the opposite of Usenet, and pretty much every other board on the planet. However, the concepts represented by Usenet convention remain unchanged--you're causing problems in my thread--you're off topic, therefore, you're acting like troll--here you're a "moderator" everywhere else you're a "troll."

[Rolling Thunder]

Yeah, I'm making the smack-down call on this one now.

[ColoradoGuy]

A couple of things as you go on your merry way. Thing one: threads in this forum often wander from the opening post. It's sort of a tradition here. If you spent some time here you would learn that. To the extent the meanderings add interesting aspects to the conversation, we like that. Somebody has to decide when that meandering is no longer useful, and that's one thing the room moderators do. Neither of them is here just now, so roving super moderators, such as myself and Rllgthunder, fill in that role.

Thing two: tone matters, and yours is way over the top. If you stayed here a while, you would learn the regulars often exchange what you might regard as epithets or insults. But you have to earn that right by contributing for a while and getting to know people. A newcomer's insults are presumed to be that--insults. You've called me obnoxious and a troll: I've labeled your words gnomic and bombastic. Yours is a personal insult, mine's not.

Thing three: it has crossed my mind you've ramped up the language to get banned. We see a lot of drive-by activity of that sort. Then the instigators go back to wherever they came from to tell their friends how intolerant we are. Congratulations--you've achieved that.

[ColoradoGuy]

Might as well lock this puppy now.