Hillary Clinton To Support Bush Court Nominee

[CAnnoneer]

Rebar,

I admit that my resentment sometimes goes too far. You can see it in my language. But, I do honestly believe this guy and his clique will destroy us, or in best case scenario, cripple us for many years to come. And taking into account I am not a liberal or a dem, but a dead-center pro-gun pro-military pro-free-economy moderate, this speaks volumes!

As far as social security goes, all Bush proposed was to restructure it, i.e. a new paint on the same old lemon. If you have 80 bucks in your pocket, but need 800 dollars to pay your rent, it does not matter if you have four 20s or eight 10s. You are screwed either way. Except, you would get even more screwed when you have to pay a 5 dollar fee to break down the 20s, leaving you with 75.

Besides, how will private accounts help anything? Most people know nothing about the stock market and will lose everything in a jiffy. The only people that will benefit will be investment bankers and brokerage firms, together with a few lucky fools. We the majority would protest, the supporters would produce the few uncharacteristic success stories, just like the lottery coaxes you with the pictures of the one winner. Except, you have the choice of buying a ticket or not, while you do not have a choice to pay or not pay social security tax.

If social security is meaningless and would not be around 40 years from now, how is it morally right, and even legal, that I am paying hundreds of dollars every month to it??

Moreover, if my social security money is to replace money that was given back to multimillionaires, this means my money went directly into their pockets! This is absolutely corrupt, messed-up, and unethical

And to answer your question, Marshall, there is nothing wrong with being rich. I do not like spoiled rich scions, but agree they have the right to luxuriate in what their ancestors worked hard to build at some time. What is wrong is when the ultra-rich take that money and buy politicians who betray the interests of the American people in order to further enrich their masters. What is wrong is when they hire evil corrupt geniuses like Karl to perpetuate a cycle of lies, manipulation, scare tactics, and slash-and-burn politics. That is just corruption, pure and simple, and should not be tolerated.

I know that this is the way the world has worked for millenia, but this does not mean that we should treat this as something acceptable and vote for politicians that do that. Otherwise, we are endorsing their behavior and in essence are already slaves in our own minds.

 

[Rebar]

You can see it in my language. But, I do honestly believe this guy and his clique will destroy us, or in best case scenario, cripple us for many years to come.

You mean, he'll destroy us in the last two years of his eight in office? Sure he will.

Most people know nothing about the stock market and will lose everything in a jiffy.

Well gee, if we're all so ignorant, lets give all our money to the government since they know how to best spend it for us.

If social security is meaningless and would not be around 40 years from now, how is it morally right, and even legal, that I am paying hundreds of dollars every month to it??

You mean, the money outside your private account, because you keep that no matter what. Oh that's right, you don't have a private account, thanks Democrats!

And taking into account I am not a liberal or a dem, but a dead-center pro-gun pro-military pro-free-economy moderate, this speaks volumes!

What is wrong is when the ultra-rich take that money and buy politicians who betray the interests of the American people in order to further enrich their masters. What is wrong is when they hire evil corrupt geniuses like Karl to perpetuate a cycle of lies, manipulation, scare tactics, and slash-and-burn politics.

BS. You're one of hundreds of DU trolls who come here to "rile up the rednecks". Nice try. Actually, it was a pretty lame attempt, so bad try.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Rebar,

Well, the fact that I get a reaction like this from you I think says more about you than me. And trying to categorize me without knowing me, or in essence directly insulting me as some spy or agitator or mole or something for the dems, also does not help matters.

Instead of concentrating on insulting me, consider this:

Most of the red states give less to the fed gov than they receive from it. For example, Montana takes in 1.5 dollars for every dollar they give. Yet, Montana is strongly anti-fed. Fed means what they are not, meaning big cities and Hollywood. Since dems control those and have all those crazy social programs and eco regs, big gov=dems, big gov=bad, hence dems=bad.

Now, the reps go to Montana and say "We are for a small government. We're are gonna strangle the mighty DC beast that has been limiting your freedoms." So, Montanans like that and it is a red state.

But what will happen when the reps do bankrupt the gov with their deficits? Will the gov be able to subsidize Montana as before?? Who wins and who loses in the long run? Who pockets the money and who will have their local economy crumble?

Let's face it, people like Dick and Karl don't give a sh*t about you, me, Montana, state rights, or anything or anybody else besides themselves and their bank accounts. In fact, I do believe that they would laugh their butts off if they read this thread here and see that somebody like me has been taken for dem

The only thing they care about is winning, first and foremost, above all. That is why they run this country like a corporation - all you need to have TOTAL control is 51% of the votes. The other 49% can go suck on a lemon, 'cause they don't mean sh*t. This means, to them I am sh*t. Bush didn't even show up in Cullifawnya in 2004, basically telling me my vote and I are worthless, along with the votes of one of the most populous states and the 5th largest economy in the world! Why is that? Because all they care about is finagling enough votes to win. CA is blue, it's an uphill battle not worth the time. So, I am not worth the time. Sounds familiar??

 

[itgoesboom]

Cannoneer,

Social Security has been broken for years. Both the Repubs and the Dems have raided it for all the little social programs out there. Mainly the dems to be quite honest with you.

The difference is that Bush felt that it was time for the Gov't to put the money back, so that those of us who paid into it would actually be able to use it when the time comes, rather than being sent a IOU when we should get a check.

When Bush suggested that it was time to pay the piper, the Dems started to scream about how Bush wanted to increase the deficit.

Either way, the Gov't needs to pay the money back. One party is trying to, the other has their heads in the sand.

Oh, and one more thing, the surest way to prevent large deficits is to stop funding free handouts and social programs left and right.

Geee...which party is it that does that again?

I.G.B.

 

[CAnnoneer]

itgoesboom,

In order to pay, you have to have the money. What is the point of starting all these programs that sound good on paper but never get funded and indeed produce more damage in the long run? Example: No Child Left Behind has completely crippled public schools in Cullifawnya because it has ordered new tests and functions but provided no money for it. How is it in your state?

Are you really paying anything if you are borrowing even more to pay it? It is like taking a second mortgage on your house because you cannot pay the first. Where does the money come from? Will Saudi Arabia and the national bank of China continue subsidizing us indefinitely? Just the maintenance of our current debt has reached gargantuan proportions.

The dems opposed the reform on the grounds that the restructuring price is very high, while you are still left with 80 dollars in the end (or 75 actually) (see above post). To get the 800, you must borrow them. From where?

Also consider this. If you are bank of China, would you lend more money to US if you know the money will be given to old folks for their daily needs, as opposed to invested in new technologies or building new factories? It would be like giving away a consumer loan without collateral or adequate income. That is just lunacy!

Finally, yes I agree, one of my biggest gripes with the dems is the many high-profile feel-good handout programs, but I think Bill really cut down on those in the 1990s, which is why he did balance the budget and produce an unheard-off surplus in 2000. So, is it really a completely valid jab?

 

[Rebar]

And trying to categorize me without knowing me, or in essence directly insulting me as some spy or agitator or mole or something for the dems, also does not help matters.

I don't have to know you. I just have to read what you wrote. Lets examine that, shall we?
First you say:

And taking into account I am not a liberal or a dem, but a dead-center pro-gun pro-military pro-free-economy moderate, this speaks volumes!

Ok, you say you're a "moderate". Great!

But then you vomit forth this:

What is wrong is when the ultra-rich take that money and buy politicians who betray the interests of the American people in order to further enrich their masters. What is wrong is when they hire evil corrupt geniuses like Karl to perpetuate a cycle of lies, manipulation, scare tactics, and slash-and-burn politics.

Straight out of the DU and moveon.org talking points. And maybe the communist party's too.

The second quote gives up the lie that you're any kind of moderate, an extra lie is that you're in any way "pro-free-economy".

To sum up, you're a lying troll, convicted by your own words.

 

[Vang]

One can be pro-free market and think certain practices are disgusting and should not happen. I do not believe he ever endorsed changing the law to prevent such things, which would be anti-free market.

Even if his comment was "Straight out of the DU and moveon.org talking points," he is in some ways correct. People who have lots of money influence the process with campaign contributions, like it or not. I would call this is a disgusting practice, even though I hate, hate, hate bills like McCaine-Feingold. I would like to see a society where such contributions do not happen because companies fear boycotts if they do.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Rebar,

So if I agree with the dems on ANY issue or use ANY of their language, it is impossible for me to a moderate! If I would not stand for corruption, I must be a f***ing commie.

You have worked yourself into a nice little black-and-white world, or shall we say red-and-blue world. That is EXACTLY how Dubya, Dick, and the ultra-leftist dem leadership moss-brains WANT you to be - paranoid and bipolar. That is exactly how that fat bastard Micheal Moore WANTS you to be, so that he can make millions selling his movies to the city folks you and Dubya scare sh*tless...

Good job.

 

[RealGun]

And taking into account I am not a liberal or a dem, but a dead-center pro-gun pro-military pro-free-economy moderate, this speaks volumes! - CAnnoneer

If rabidly anti-establishment, you are certainly not a conservative or even moderate. You would have to have some measure of peace with the status quo, finding the good with the bad. If it's all bad, and only Democrats could do it right, guess what? You're not a moderate.

Know who your allies are and what they stand for.

 

[Rebar]

You have worked yourself into a nice little black-and-white world, or shall we say red-and-blue world.

Really? You're the one spewing rabid Bush-hate and bashing republicans and "rich people", and I'm the one living in a "red-and-blue" world? You call yourself "pro-free-economy", yet oppose privatizing social security? You call yourself a moderate, yet accuse Bush of destroying the country?

You're a left wing moonbat. Which is ok, it is a free country, but don't try to fool us about what you really are.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Besides, how will private accounts help anything? Most people know nothing about the stock market and will lose everything in a jiffy.

Spoken like a true socialist: The little people can’t fend for themselves, they need Big Brother to look after them.

For example, Montana takes in 1.5 dollars for every dollar they give.

Montana has a combination of small population and several huge national parks that need maintained. I don’t know how much of that 1.5 dollars goes to the parks, but it might make Montana a bad example of whatever you’re trying to prove.

Regardless, if you’re suggesting red county folks are dependent on blue county folks, I’d say you have it backwards. The blue counties need us, we don’t need them. We would very happily s**t-can them to Canada.

 

[Vang]

Rebar, the "private accounts" suggestion is not true privitization. The only true privatization is destruction, something I support completely.

Silver Bullet, the reality is that "blue states" pay more to the federal government than they recieve in most cases. Now, I don't think this is worthy of making an issue about (I, afterall, want to get rid of most of the reasons we have taxes), but you should face the reality.

 

[Rebar]

Rebar, the "private accounts" suggestion is not true privitization. The only true privatization is destruction, something I support completely.

I agree. But sometimes you have to have incrimental changes, rather than all at once. Bush's proposal is a start, the "thin edge of the wedge" so to speak.

 

[Vang]

I'm not sure how making the system better will lead to us to destroying it.

 

[Rebar]

I'm not sure how making the system better will lead to us to destroying it.

You start by give private accounts for a small percentage. Then you gradually increase the percentage until it reaches 100%. At that point, you can eliminate the program altogether, since it will hav become obsolete. Which is why the Democrats are so dead-set against it, they know that's where it will end up.

 

[Vang]

The problem is that you have to make the contributions voluntary instead of mandatory at some point. Both this and increasing the percentage will be very difficult politically.

 

[CAnnoneer]

RealGun,

First, thank you for not calling me a commie or a mole.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the establishment, so long as it behaves itself ethically. In capitalism, it is inevitable that people of higher ability can and will make it better for themselves. This is the very basis of meritocracy that has kept this country, or any workable system, nice and healthy.

So, I have no problem with the Kerries, Hiltons, Kennedies, Bushes, Rockefellers, etc. so long as they do not buy politicians and make them steal from us to give to themselves.

I absolutely do not understand why you guys so tightly associate capitalism and free enterprise with corruption and fraud at the highest levels. I do not see it has to be this way.

Examples of people that were/are fabulously rich but are not known to have bought politicians: Bill Gates, Beckman, Turner, IBM Moore. Maybe they have, but I have not heard or seen any of that. Now compare these guys to the Enron gang and the Halliburton gang. Are they even in the same region in your minds?

All of this makes me anti-corruption, not anti-establishment or anti-capitalist.

Also, I have never claimed that the dems are all nice either. Frankly, people like Peloci, Weinstein, Byrd, and Boxer scare me almost as much as Dubya at times.

As a practical person, what I see is:
1) Clinton 1990s - peaceful, THE most prosperous time in US history, seventeen times more millionaires were created than in the gold rush of 1800s, huge surplus in 2000

vs

2) Bush's 2000s - political wildland, overstretched military, sky-rocketing deficits, tax cuts for the wealthiest, resurgence of religious fundamentalism, the train racing full speed ahead to the railstop of 2011.

I understand there is always a pendulum effect and good and bad years and external influences, but is it at all possible that the admin has absolutely nothing to do with this? Have you ever seen this admin publically taking ANY responsibility for anything? I forgot, they are infallible because big G is on their side...

 

[CAnnoneer]

Rebar,

I do not oppose privatizing social security. I oppose its existence. I would rather keep my money completely and manage it directly. With my credit rating I have proven I know one or two things about how to make money and how to be fiscally responsible. And I know more about the stock market than 90% of the population.

But, we do not live in my dream world of Randian personal responsibility, we live in this world. Here, I am being robbed montly of hundreds of dollars which I know I will never ever see again. So, I think you will understand if I have low tolerance for BS from corrupt politicians that try to feed me the proverbial crap sandwich. They are taking my money, but at least they could have spared me insults on my intelligence...

Also, I have been called a "fascist capitalist pig" by leftists on numerous occasions.

So, if both polar opposites think I am on the other side, I can only be in the center

 

[CAnnoneer]

Silver Bullet,

I think I understand your feelings. But, consider this:

Most of the high technology and industrial might are saturated in the big population centers, which are exclusively in the blue states. To say that you do not need that is to say that all the fruits of our technologically advanced society are unnecessary to you.

I do not know your lifestyle and I am not going to make assumptions, but please consider what your life would be like without:

1) energy sources other than wood you chop or coal you mine
2) transportation other than horse power
3) agricultural chemicals
4) medical care of any sort other than herbs you gather yourself
5) communications other than carrier pigeons and hired couriers
6) any tools other than ones you make in your home
7) explosives and propellants other than what you can make by yourself from the energy sources available to you above
8) metals or polymers of any sort, other than what you can make yourself within the restrictions above

 

[Rebar]

CAnnoneer,

You can twist and turn all you want - your words speak for themselves. Stop pretending, we've all seen too many DU trolls here, we know what they smell like, and that particular vile odor is pouring off of you.

 

[Marshall]

Most of the high technology and industrial might are saturated in the big population centers, which are exclusively in the blue states.

Dallas.............Red State
Houston..........Red State
Atlanta...........Red State
Miami.............Red State
Kansas City.....Red State
Cincinatti........Red State
Cleveland........Red state
St. Louis.........Red State

I can go on if you would like. Matter of fact that whole statement above is hogwash. Technology and industry come from many cities other than blue state cities. If they were all added up, I would bet more come from red states overall. There are a ton of mid size cities that produce mega technology.

OKC
Tulsa
Austin
Boulder
Phoenix
Tampa
Jacksonville
Boulder


and I could go on here as well.


To use your logic, are there more rich people per capita in the blue states? If wealth controls elections and politics, how do you explain this fact?

OH yea, on the Rice/Bush, tax cuts, etc. you're so far of course I don't even know where to begin. If you're that out of touch, nothing I say will change it.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Rebar,

Having a complex, well-thought-out position on multiple issues is not "twisting and turning". It's called intelligence and depth.

Squeezing me into this or that mould to fit an easily dismissible stereotype is a cop-out next to facing the real issues in all their starkness and a complex, confusing, multi-color world. That's why you prefer to categorize me and attack me personally and take individual expressions out of context rather than take my position in its entirety or engage me on the factual level.

As much as I hate comparing myself to that snotty weakling Kerry, the discussion on this thread has had an uncanny resemblance to the 2004 campaign and presidential debates. Kerry engages issues (albeit inarticulately and confusingly), Bush attacks him personally, takes things out of context, and categorizes him for easy digestion by the masses. Kerry gets entangled in explaining what he is not, while Bush repeats a simplistic message like a parrot. Kerry speaks on commonsense ground and exhorts Bush to take responsibility for his mistakes, Bush grins like a village idiot and chants :"You can run but you can't hide." I guess Dick and Karl thought KISS...

Anyway, as a social mustang, I am no Kerry, so I am no longer going to argue about my political identity. If you think I am some liberal moonbat, and dismiss what I have said, it is only your loss in the long run

The Matrix has you... You have the choice between a virtual steak and a very real but tasteless protein goop. The choice is yours

 

[CAnnoneer]

Marshall,

You are right in the counter-examples. But consider density of industry. Indeed there are individual centers like Boulder and Austin that are very high-tech. But they are there primarily because of cheaper land and generally lower standard of living, which means big corp can pay far less to gain the same.

These big corporations are national and international and are not good examples for characterization of state economies. Besides, most of these corporations sell their products to the east, north east, and pacific west. So, if you ship the blue states to Canada, which was the original suggestion, these corporations are out of business and their local branches will collapse. That is why they would never allow any of that either.

Now let's compare this to the pacific west, which in my opinion can cut ties tomorrow and be virtually independent in every respect from the other regions. Certainly, there will be some damage because the national economy is tightly integrated, but saying that blue states need red states, while red states don't need blue states can only be a joke.

Finally, comparing average income is a bit unfair taking into account how much more immigration Cullifawnya gets. By the same logic you'd say that China is weaker than Switzerland.

What I would compare is how many millionaire westcoaster and eastcoasters buy mansions, vacation houses, and golf courses in Montana as opposed to how many Montanan millionaires buy mansions in Cullifawynia. What I would also compare is how many young Montanans move to the big cities at the coasts, as opposed to how many New Yorker or San Franciscan youths move to seek their fortune in Montana.

Finally, don't take my word on Bush and co., me the alleged commie mole. What converted me was not M. Moore's ravings but "The Price of Loyalty" by Suskind. I guess if you do not agree with conservatives like Greenspan and O'Neal on the effect of Bush's tax cuts, they also must be commie moles

 

[Correia]

Good freaking hell. What was this stupid thread about again?

Closed. I would extra close it, if that were an option.