Hillary is done

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Take your condescension and stick it.

Obama is a hard-core socialist. You can easily find that by looking on the web, but I'd guess you'd ignore it because you don't want to admit it or you're a socialist like he is.

I don't think people even know what the word "socialist" means anymore. And I assume I could also find on the web that Obama is a tiny green alien with an affinity for jello, but that wouldn't make it true.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

He makes people feel good by lying and avoiding the hard discussions.

Well, in his defense, most all politician do that as well. Obama is either a genius who knows what the people want to hear or a scam artist who knows the general population are suckers.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If he were able to get all his programs implemented, it would be economically catastrophic. Others are trying to appease me by claiming "he's just lying to get elected but the Congress will slow him down." I'm not convinced he won't start implementing many of them at high cost to us.

However, perhaps he views like this, "hey, I'll promise them anything to get in, and if I can get some of it so be it, and anybody who stops me will get mowed down for not following me."

"And if any tough choices must be made, I'll let the others decide and take the blame."

So I can see that he's lying at every promise, every stage of the game. The more I consider his conniving manner, his devious plans, the more evil he appears to be.

You seem to have skipped the whole middle section of your logic. 1. You don't like his programs, 2. Some say he is lying about what he intends to accomplish, therefore 3. "So I can see he's lying at every promise..." I also disagree with a significant amount of his platform and would be happy to see certain of his ideas fail, but I'm really not seeing any evidence of dishonesty so far.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't think people even know what the word "socialist" means anymore. And I assume I could also find on the web that Obama is a tiny green alien with an affinity for jello, but that wouldn't make it true.

Well, perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't socialism where the state controls and distributes wealth?

That sounds a lot like what both Obama and Mrs. Clinton are promising.

[woot]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Well, perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't socialism where the state controls and distributes wealth?

That sounds a lot like what both Obama and Mrs. Clinton are promising.

And what every American politician is promising. Fixing a label on someone is meaningless unless the label can't also be applied to everyone else. If you mean that Clinton and Obama are slightly more socialist than McCain or Huckabee, you're right, but they're all socialists by your definition.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

You seem to have skipped the whole middle section of your logic. 1. You don't like his programs, 2. Some say he is lying about what he intends to accomplish, therefore 3. "So I can see he's lying at every promise..." I also disagree with a significant amount of his platform and would be happy to see certain of his ideas fail, but I'm really not seeing any evidence of dishonesty so far.

Go back and see what he's done in Illinois and compare his agenda.

Of course, I detest his policies, but that doesn't figure into the logic of lying. If he is unaware of the unattainability of some of his pet projects, he's a naive fool.

If he is aware, but is still making the promise, knowing it will be impossible but is making it to damage his opponents and to further gain power with the electorate, he is a clever, but evil liar.

That's the part of the logic that is independent of whether I like his devious projects.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

And what every American politician is promising. Fixing a label on someone is meaningless unless the label can't also be applied to everyone else. If you mean that Clinton and Obama are slightly more socialist than McCain or Huckabee, you're right, but they're all socialists by your definition.

I'll concede that most politicians do that, but Obama and Mrs. Clinton have taken it to an entirely different level. They are not just slightly more socialist. They're a helluva a lot more socialist. (Universal healthcare is the evidence.)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex, you have as much as stated that you will support the Republican party, no matter the cost

Not that I really care what Cali thinks, but for those of you following along at home, this is a lie.

Originally Posted by woot

That's true, but search for the word "idiot" here and particularly on CB and you'll find that it's the standard word for "anyone who disagrees with me." Perhaps I'm too generous, but I think that if you pinned those types down they would acknowledge that the people they're criticizing are intelligent. The less brain-washed might even acknowledge that their political enemies probably arrived at their positions for good reasons.

I think it's just a lazy way of disagreeing with someone without having to actually deal with constructing arguments, rather than an actual attack on the intelligence of the person in question.

I don't think Obama is stupid, but his speeches are full of fluff.

"Yeah, Tex, but what politician's aren't?" None, but Obama's managed to get further with less, than most. And I think he is horribly undersized for the job. He is as unseasoned a national politician as we've seen in some time.

Go watch that Texas state senator Obama supporter interview with Chris Matthew. That says more about the Obama messiah cult than any CG post ever could.

[woot]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I'll concede that most politicians do that, but Obama and Mrs. Clinton have taken it to an entirely different level. They are not just slightly more socialist. They're a helluva a lot more socialist. (Universal healthcare is the evidence.)

I think we're all aware that democrats want universal healthcare, whereas Republicans just want universal education, infrastructure, military, clean air/water, etc. In the grand scheme of things, democrats are a pretty small fraction more socialist than republicans, particularly when republicans are so keen on giving the people's money away to various corporations in the form of subsidies.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I think we're all aware that democrats want universal healthcare, whereas Republicans just want universal education, infrastructure, military, clean air/water, etc. In the grand scheme of things, democrats are a pretty small fraction more socialist than republicans, particularly when republicans are so keen on giving the people's money away to various corporations in the form of subsidies.

Well, let's look at this way, the health care industry in the US is a trillion dollar per year industry. To place one third of our economy under the socialist controls is pretty damn controlling. In economic terms, that's a catastrophic change with cataclysmic results.

If you don't actually look at economic impact, you'd be correct, but looking at the actual fallout and you'd be dead wrong.