dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
In other words, if anything good comes of this, it'll be a miracle.
Hillary Pulls it Out.
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
In other words, if anything good comes of this, it'll be a miracle.
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
LOL!
The thing is, the same could be said about lots of things in history that turned out pretty good. Those Minutemen shot down on Lexington green? Washington's retreat across New Jersey after being routed out of NYC and losing thousands as POWs at Fort Washington (most to die in hulks)? The bombardment of Fort Sumpter? Pearl Harbor? Dunkirk? The same could have been said about all of them.
(On the other side you could say Stalingrad, Dieppe, Wake Island, etc. The point is, you really just never can know for sure.)
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
rox
RA you really just never can know for sure [about outcomes]
the point here, i think mab will agree, is that ms rox is a SELECTIVE agnostic about the future. she does NOT KNOW whether the actions of Republicans like GWB and Cheney will turn out for the best, in 50 years.
she of course is almost certain that the actions of various Democrats, from Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton-- in the last case, less than ten years back--will, or already have, turn(ed) out badly.
Roxanne is, here, at her common--though not invariable-- practice of flack catching--or deflection of criticism, as here-- for Republicans.
RA you really just never can know for sure [about outcomes]
the point here, i think mab will agree, is that ms rox is a SELECTIVE agnostic about the future. she does NOT KNOW whether the actions of Republicans like GWB and Cheney will turn out for the best, in 50 years.
she of course is almost certain that the actions of various Democrats, from Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton-- in the last case, less than ten years back--will, or already have, turn(ed) out badly.
Roxanne is, here, at her common--though not invariable-- practice of flack catching--or deflection of criticism, as here-- for Republicans.
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
Well, that's fairly ridiculous. By February 1945, almost every major German city had already been reduced to ruins, and the firestorm treatment accorded Dresden had already been used on Hamburg in 1943. The Russians were 50 miles from Berlin, the German economy was paralyzed, the German military was running out of fuel, ammunition, and, after the Ardennes offensive, personnel. Any further effective resistance had become impossible: the war was over.
What effect it had on the German people was to reinforce what Goebbels had been telling them all along, that the British and Americans were as murderous as the Russians, that their talk about human rights and Geneva Conventions was all lies, and if the Germans expected any sort of humane treatment from the Americans and British once they surrendered to them, forget it. They might as well fight to the last man.
The effect it had on the British and American people, when word of the event leaked past the censors, was shock and horror. And, of course, Churchill immediately began to attempt to distance himself from the mission which he had formerly advocated. It's interesting to contrast the reaction of civilized people then, which was that this was an awful thing, an outrage, with the attitudes of supposedly civilized people today, so many of whom invent confused and twisted justifications in an attempt to defend it. Are modern video games to blame, perhaps?
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
I don't know what you base that on, other than my criticisms of Clinton using the military for political purposes, as in cruise-missiling Afghan "terrorist training camps" and Sudanese aspirin factories (while I gave a thumbs-up to Kosovo.) I've said in the past that I thought Jimmy's human rights stance played to one of our strengths. (BTW, the Reagan military buildup was actually initiated by Carter, as was the decision to respond to Sov SS 20 missiles by putting Pershings and cruise missiles in Europe. Whether Jimmy would have had the balls to defy the KGB-orchestrated "no-nukes" protest campaign laid on to derail that response is another question, but he made the original call.)
I'm rather a fan of Truman's foreign policy. I don't think much of Kennedy's - who does?
Viet Nam's turn toward capitalism - some of their current economic policies are more free market than ours right now - is an example of how history moves in unpredicable ways, although it doesn't really say anything about US policy - that war was almost exclusively nothing but tragic.
~~~~
Here's what may be going on: I try to not get swept up in the partisan enthusiasms (or hatreds) of either side when it comes to foreign policy, and try to view events with a long-term historical perspective. All the energy in this area now is in "hating Bush" and reviling all his policies, with scads of unbalanced, inflamed, a-historical polemics. If that's what I'm responding to - and it often is because it's most of what passes for foreign policy discussion here and in other places right now - then it's easy for Pure to cast me as a "GOP flack-catcher."
Last edited:
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
RA
You may be correct about Vietnam's tolerance for capitalism in the private sector, but socialism is alive and thriving for their bureaucrats. The Viets figured out how to do it from Americans. Its our system exactly. Socialist government for bureaucrats combined with a capitalist private sector for the bureaucrats to milk.
You may be correct about Vietnam's tolerance for capitalism in the private sector, but socialism is alive and thriving for their bureaucrats. The Viets figured out how to do it from Americans. Its our system exactly. Socialist government for bureaucrats combined with a capitalist private sector for the bureaucrats to milk.
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Listen up, Oprah:
'People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.
'Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)
'. . . the plain fact about the senator from New York is surely that she is a known quantity who has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and not at all a quixotic outsider who represents the aspirations of an "out" group, let alone a whole sex or gender.
'. . . Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. . . . Far from taking us forward, this sort of discussion actually keeps us anchored in the past. Surely the essential and unarguable core of King's campaign was the insistence that pigmentation was a false measure . . .
'. . . I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics . . . We will know that we have put (all) this behind us when we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice(s).'
Christopher Hitchens
'People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.
'Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)
'. . . the plain fact about the senator from New York is surely that she is a known quantity who has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and not at all a quixotic outsider who represents the aspirations of an "out" group, let alone a whole sex or gender.
'. . . Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. . . . Far from taking us forward, this sort of discussion actually keeps us anchored in the past. Surely the essential and unarguable core of King's campaign was the insistence that pigmentation was a false measure . . .
'. . . I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics . . . We will know that we have put (all) this behind us when we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice(s).'
Christopher Hitchens
Last edited:
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,469
You can always count on Hitchens for a good laugh. And as an example of the damage anger addiction can do to a person.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
interesting and rare,
right wing pundit chris matthews made an almost apology to Hillary over his sexist remarks. no rightwinger here has those kinda balls (nor most out there, either).
hitchens and others like him have entirely double standards for hillary: witness:
[hillary] has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and
that's exactly how GWB got to the white house, through his 'relationship with a man. does anyone think it was because of his native wit and wry humor? his stunning successes in business?
===
Matthews said in part
//Some people I respect, politically concerned people like you who watch the show so faithfully every night, people who care about this country think I've been disrespectful for Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman. They point to something I said on MSNBC's Morning Joe the morning after the New Hampshire primary, that her election to the U.S. Senate and all that's come since was a result of her toughness, but also the sympathy for her because her husband embarrassed her by the conduct that led to his impeachment. The words I used were "messed around."
The truth, of course finer, smarter, larger than that. Yes, Hillary Clinton won tremendous respect from the country for the way she handled the difficult months in 1998. Her public approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s up to the 70s in one poll I looked at. Why? Because she stuck to her duty. She performed strongly as First Lady. She did such a wow of a job campaigning for Senate candidates, especially Chuck Schumer of New York, that she was urged to run for a Senate seat there herself. She might have well gotten that far by another route and through different circumstances, but this is how it happened. The rest is history.
How Hillary went up to New York, listened to people's concerns and beat the odds as well as the Republicans to become a well respected member of the U.S. senate. I did say it right? Was it fair to say that Hillary Clinton, like any great politician, took advantage of a crisis to prove herself? Was her conduct in 1998 a key to starting her independent electoral career the following year? Yes. Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depending on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying. And it hurt people.
I'd like to think people normally like what I say. In fact, normally like me. As I said, I rely on my heart to guide me in the heated, fast-paced talk we have here on Hardball. A heart that bears only goodwill toward people trying to make it out there, especially those who haven't before. If my heart has not always controlled my words, on those occasions when I have not taken the time to say things right or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I'll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women, of all people, the full equality and respect for their ambitions. So I get it.
On the particular point, if I'd said it the only reason John McCain has come so far is that he got shot down over North Vietnam and captured by the enemy, I'd be brutally ignoring the courage and guts he showed in bearing up under his captivity. Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now that it comes across just as nasty. Worse yet, just as dismissive. //
right wing pundit chris matthews made an almost apology to Hillary over his sexist remarks. no rightwinger here has those kinda balls (nor most out there, either).
hitchens and others like him have entirely double standards for hillary: witness:
[hillary] has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and
that's exactly how GWB got to the white house, through his 'relationship with a man. does anyone think it was because of his native wit and wry humor? his stunning successes in business?
===
Matthews said in part
//Some people I respect, politically concerned people like you who watch the show so faithfully every night, people who care about this country think I've been disrespectful for Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman. They point to something I said on MSNBC's Morning Joe the morning after the New Hampshire primary, that her election to the U.S. Senate and all that's come since was a result of her toughness, but also the sympathy for her because her husband embarrassed her by the conduct that led to his impeachment. The words I used were "messed around."
The truth, of course finer, smarter, larger than that. Yes, Hillary Clinton won tremendous respect from the country for the way she handled the difficult months in 1998. Her public approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s up to the 70s in one poll I looked at. Why? Because she stuck to her duty. She performed strongly as First Lady. She did such a wow of a job campaigning for Senate candidates, especially Chuck Schumer of New York, that she was urged to run for a Senate seat there herself. She might have well gotten that far by another route and through different circumstances, but this is how it happened. The rest is history.
How Hillary went up to New York, listened to people's concerns and beat the odds as well as the Republicans to become a well respected member of the U.S. senate. I did say it right? Was it fair to say that Hillary Clinton, like any great politician, took advantage of a crisis to prove herself? Was her conduct in 1998 a key to starting her independent electoral career the following year? Yes. Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depending on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying. And it hurt people.
I'd like to think people normally like what I say. In fact, normally like me. As I said, I rely on my heart to guide me in the heated, fast-paced talk we have here on Hardball. A heart that bears only goodwill toward people trying to make it out there, especially those who haven't before. If my heart has not always controlled my words, on those occasions when I have not taken the time to say things right or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I'll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women, of all people, the full equality and respect for their ambitions. So I get it.
On the particular point, if I'd said it the only reason John McCain has come so far is that he got shot down over North Vietnam and captured by the enemy, I'd be brutally ignoring the courage and guts he showed in bearing up under his captivity. Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now that it comes across just as nasty. Worse yet, just as dismissive. //
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hitchens on why NOT Hillary
http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/
it's pungent and well written but i don't find it very convincing.
anyone?
the sexual immorality thing was beaten to death by Ken Starr, but the right seem unaware the horse died a few years back.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/
it's pungent and well written but i don't find it very convincing.
anyone?
the sexual immorality thing was beaten to death by Ken Starr, but the right seem unaware the horse died a few years back.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,469
Same old blah, blah, blah you'd expect from Hitchens.
I'm no longer paying attention to the 'Hillary controversy'. People on both sides have become more than a little irrational about her. When people started referring to her as 'Hitlery' I realized that there was no more point in being attentive.
The people who hate her shouldn't worry. The chances of her seeing the Oval Office again are, as I've stated before, very poor. There are too many people who regard it as their 'patriotic duty', or even their 'holy duty' to allow her to live.
I'm no longer paying attention to the 'Hillary controversy'. People on both sides have become more than a little irrational about her. When people started referring to her as 'Hitlery' I realized that there was no more point in being attentive.
The people who hate her shouldn't worry. The chances of her seeing the Oval Office again are, as I've stated before, very poor. There are too many people who regard it as their 'patriotic duty', or even their 'holy duty' to allow her to live.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
a few months back, i thought that. i even thought the Dems would be deterred from nominating her.
in light of the votes, she has an excellent chance of being a candidate, and given Republican disaorganization, and possible weak challengers like Huck, i think she has a good shot at the White House. polls matching her against possible GOP candidates confirm her strength.
because of the tendency of the Hillary Haters to go hysterical, and churn out old material, amicus style, i think her chances improve.
in light of the votes, she has an excellent chance of being a candidate, and given Republican disaorganization, and possible weak challengers like Huck, i think she has a good shot at the White House. polls matching her against possible GOP candidates confirm her strength.
because of the tendency of the Hillary Haters to go hysterical, and churn out old material, amicus style, i think her chances improve.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,871
Sounds nice--but there's that whole "there were still enough of these people around to get Bush elected the second time" thing.
It's going to be a Bette Davis* election campaign, I'm afraid.
*"Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night" (from All about Eve)
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Chris Matthews is a center-left pundit, not a "right wing" one. Perhaps from your perspective that point on the spectrum is right of center, but it's an inaccurate description of the current continuum.
With regards the Hitchens thing, I love how you try to make a point by changing the subject with an irrelevant non-sequitor:
"hitchens has entirely double standards for hillary: 'Hillary has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man . . . ' That's exactly how GWB got to the white house."
Huh? Where's the double standard? Hitchens can't stand GWB.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
Hillary leads an entire bloc of the party, has for a decade. She can't be deterred.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Question for the gurus and experts,
I realize this place does not show an overabundance of Republicans, so i ask the independents and Dems to participate through imagination:
IF you were head of the Republican party, and/or one of its major candidates-- let's say it's pretty likely to be McCain, Romney, or Huck--would you rather run against Hillary or against Obama?
IOW, according to a Republican POV, who is the weaker candidate, the one most vulnerable to devasting attack through the favorite avenues of Republicans. (you know, 'soft on crime,' 'coddling terrorists, if not actively supporting them,' 'favoring sodomy, bestiality and the destruction of the man/woman headed family.')
I realize this place does not show an overabundance of Republicans, so i ask the independents and Dems to participate through imagination:
IF you were head of the Republican party, and/or one of its major candidates-- let's say it's pretty likely to be McCain, Romney, or Huck--would you rather run against Hillary or against Obama?
IOW, according to a Republican POV, who is the weaker candidate, the one most vulnerable to devasting attack through the favorite avenues of Republicans. (you know, 'soft on crime,' 'coddling terrorists, if not actively supporting them,' 'favoring sodomy, bestiality and the destruction of the man/woman headed family.')
Last edited:
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
If they don't run McCain, they're crazy.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,469
Speaking as a mental exercise, the Republicans should definitely run against Hilary.
There is a wide spread and vicious hatred of her that would be easy to incite. U.S. political parties now have decades of experience at exploiting hatred.
The same could be said of Obama, but the hatred there is old and dying out. The number of people who don't want a black Muslim in the White House, although they'll less politically correct terms is not that large.
Yes, I know Obama isn't a Muslim. But the people that hate him believe he is.
There is a wide spread and vicious hatred of her that would be easy to incite. U.S. political parties now have decades of experience at exploiting hatred.
The same could be said of Obama, but the hatred there is old and dying out. The number of people who don't want a black Muslim in the White House, although they'll less politically correct terms is not that large.
Yes, I know Obama isn't a Muslim. But the people that hate him believe he is.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Hillary's negatives are too high to win. Half the country hates her.
DesertPirate
Sailing from the desert
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Posts
- 20,432
Why is it, every time I see this thread, I have a picture in my mind of Hilary with a strap-on pulling out at the wrong time? 
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Maybe because a strap-on is the metaphor for her constituency. Hillary represents every middle-aged woman who was ever fucked-over by a husband or company. Hillary is their payback to the guys.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
That's perceptive, actually. The RNC would have more success against Hillary than Obama. Plus, Obama is a more liberal human being than Hillary is. That's the up-side (from an Independent POV) of the Bush regime. This chain of shameful and slimy excesses? Without it, we would not be so open to change.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
I think "hates" is too strong a word. Dislikes or distrusts, okay but not hates. Some see her as a wimpette for putting up with her husband's philandering. Some see the unresolved issues of Whitewater, and believe she got away with a lot of law-breaking. Some look at the fact that, although never a resident of New York, she took advantage of a loophole in the law and ran from the Senate from there. She could run, but she would not have been able to vote for herself because of too short a term of legal residency. Never mind the fact that she won; she still played fast and loose with the law and customs.
Similar threads
