First the Radical Right, next the Plantation

[Archaea]

and Rove is "obsessing about her." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186208,00.html

Does he have a plastic doll of her as well?

She really is maniacal.

[il Padrino Ute]

She thinks so much of herself, doesn't she?

Perhaps she's the Y'zGuy of politics, as she loves to point out how the "rival" is so obsessed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh, come on Archea. You are the one calling her the "Spawn of Satan" and a "Classic Stalinist". You are hardly the one to objectively comment on whether or not Rove is obsessing about her.

And if she is indeed the democratic frontrunner, Karl Rove and company should absolutely be obsessing about her. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Oh, come on Archea. You are the one calling her the "Spawn of Satan" and a "Classic Stalinist". You are hardly the one to objectively comment on whether or not Rove is obsessing about her.

And if she is indeed the democratic frontrunner, Karl Rove and company should absolutely be obsessing about her. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty.

LOL!!! You have an excellent point there!

I don't know why people find her statement so outlandish, other than the fact that she is Hillary Clinton. Rove has already stated that he thinks Hillary is unbeatable in the primaries. He has spent countless hours trying to label Clinton with unfavorable terms to better frame the 2008 election. Isn't that "obsessing?" As homeboy said, NOT obsessing about her would be a huge mistake that would cost Republicans the election.

Clinton is right, and this is a non-story since everyone should already know she is right.

[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.

[JohnnyLingo]

And Archaea lays the smack down.

Good post.

Eagerly awaiting the liberal rebuttal.

[Cali Coug]

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.

I am becoming convinced that you, like grapevine, are just playing a game here. I can't see how any rational person could ever type out the trash you just did. Like I said earlier, you are a web of contradictions. You don't like Hillary because "she is angry," and you make that point in what can only be described as an angry post (queu Archaea's speech about how he feels no emotion). You don't like her because she is not a member of "one of the noble professions," and yet, you don't work in those fields either. In fact, you both share the same legal profession. Yet you assume hers was founded completely on her husband's political career, ignoring the fact that she attended Yale Law 6 years before marrying Bill and had already started her legal career.

You call her the "Spawn of Satan" and the "Osama bin Laden" of America. How can anyone possibly take you seriously anymore? You make dozens of unfounded assumptions about her without having ever met her. Absurd. Simply absurd.

She might be a bad person. She might be a bad politician. She might stand for something you don't. But how you can possibly take it to the point where you have taken it indicates a very deep problem that needs to be resolved.

[Archaea]

You make conclusions that are interesting, going to great lengths to defend a person you do not know, even though she has purposefully projected a public persona, and is by definition, a public person.

With any person, there is enough of life that somebody so desirous can defend another person. In a recent movie about Hitler, there was evidence suggested that Hitler was very kind to his dog. People didn't like the humanizing of somebody we acknowledge to be a monster.

In the DC museum of the Holocaust, when we are shown who the monsters are, there is a mirror, so we can see the face of evil looks like ourselves.

There is nothing angry about me; I am past almost all feeling, past anger, past almost hurt, past almost anything. There is very little reservoir of emotion.

Using Spawn of Satan, something I use in jest as an inside joke for my friends, or our Usama bin Laden, a figurative representation of terroism, even if it is economic and regulative terroism, which how I view, interventionalistic, regulative efforts of the central government out there in DC, is not over the top, but a means of showing she doens't reach us, but in fact stands for all that westeners, frontiers people and small business people represent, which is of course is a list of complex idiosyncracies, but a recipe of some degree of success.

It is apparent you are quite alien to most of us. You appear to be quite cosmopolitan, but can't relate to an older generation, a generation which does battle, a generation which stands for many things. We are not cynics, just pragmatists, recognizing, most people are both evil and good. And it is very difficult to get large numbers of people to do mostly good. It is easier to get fewer people to do good. That's why small is often better. Change is possible there.

You are at time dishonest, making claims for me, I've never made. Yes I am an attorney, by default, not by calling. It's something to do. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes the projects are fascinating, sometimes things are just helping out a neighbor. Nothing noble, nothing awful. Things just are. My life, currently, is just the way I want it; mostly anonymous, except within limited circles, sufficient funds for my needs, people to help, children to rear, countries to visit, and stuff to do. It's my job to protect that for me and my family. That's all. Keep it simple and stay away from complications. I've seen complications, I've seen politics and it isn't worth it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am past almost all feeling, past anger, past almost hurt, past almost anything. There is very little reservoir of emotion.

.
.
.

It is apparent you are quite alien to most of us.

Ummmm.... Well I can't speak for the others, but I think you are the one that is a tad bit "alien". And I say that with all due respect. After reading some of your posts, I have a strange longing to put a gun barrel in my mouth. You seem to be a deeply cynical and pessimistic individual.

[Archaea]

Not at all.

I am actually quite hopeful, just not hopeful for the things many value.

I am quite hopeful of scientific advancements. Quite hopeful that life will change. Quite hopeful of exploration.

I am not hopeful that large institutions change, except through violent means or over a very long time. History seems to provide support for this.

I'm a hopeful pragmatist.