|
Originally Posted by Archaea
Spawn of Satan is obviously over the top, but show me how she is theoretically not a socialist.
She is in favor of government regulation of industries and services. She is in favor of stratification of benefits based on government allocations. She is a true believing socialist, except as to her personal benefits.
I liked how she was a classic public educationist, until Chelsea had to be educated at a hoity toity private school.
No, come to think of it, her philosophical leanings are clearly socialist, her economics, probably 1960 or 1970s British or French socialism, but her personal actions are mostly hedonistic or classic hypocrisy.
Yes I'm biased against her, but she has provided plenty of ammunition to arrive at that bias. As I evaluate her, I can think of no actions that I regard as positive.
She's a politician, for a long time, not a profession I respect. She's a lawyer who's relied upon the political juice of her husband. Again nothing praiseworthy. She's angry. She tried to destroy and socialize our medical system. She raved against amorphous religious right wing fanatics whilest her husband committed adultery, not that I blame him, cuz I would to if married to her. She's not an exercise fanatic. She isn't fluent in multiple languages. She's not an engineer, chemist, biologist, botonist, psychologist, physician, nurse or any other of the noble professions. She's not a career military person. She's not Mother Theresa. She's not pretty. She's not kind. She's not sympathetic.
She's intelligent, but that's a God-given gift, not an earned one. She seeks power, something we should all fear. I am anxious of any person who seeks power. The very thing I like about Bush is he was a screw-off until he recovered from alcoholism. He had power around him, but until he ran for the gubernatorial position of Texas, he really wasn't involved in politics.
She hasn't spent her life devoted to a bevy of children, but rather pampered one child, probably with a bevy of auperes and nannies. You don't see her devoting countless hours to quiet, non-political charities. You don't see her as a real mom. You don't see her as a person, just the politician.
She is an intelligent, cold-calculating person, whose philosophies are directly counter to everything everybody I know has worked for, namely, mothers and fathers who love their children, work hard to build up small businesses, contribute to charities, and are involved in their communities. (No we're not the Dincs or DincOks) People who don't take government charity, but build up their own. These are her targets and the people she loathes. That's why I see her as an enemy. She's our Osama bin Laden. She's stood up as our enemy declaring anybody who falls within the group I've described as open season. Over the top? Probably, but she is a real threat to middle america, those who still believe in the ethos of the WWII generation.
I have yet to hear anything which shows she is not a threat to business owners, physicians, health care professionals, landlords, non-welfare mothers, law abiding children, and religious persons. She would fit better in a de Gaul France of the Fifth (I think) Republic. By that I mean, a society which believes government should take the lead role in rearing children, in setting business policy, in controlling education, because it believes that all society must do is teach people to be better people, and make them better by eliminating all wrong choices. That is why she doesn't fit in the states. How due to class warfare and dissatisfaction with the idiocy which is the Republican Party, there will always be opponents of general laissez faire governancy.
And no, I don't think the Reps should obsess about anybody. They should plan for all eventualities, allocating sufficient resources for the most probable eventualities, but obsessing will distort one's focus in formulating battle plans. Rove needs to be cold and calculating in order to destroy the opposition.
|