hermeneutic semicircle
February 27, 2007 10:20 AM Subscribe
Fear does strange things to people.
posted by interrobang at 10:31 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by interrobang at 10:31 AM on February 27, 2007
I always find characterizations of Hillary as left-wing to be strange, almost pathological in the level of delusion required to sustain the hated illusion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:33 AM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:33 AM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
Blaze, they did the same thing with Bill even though there was very little that he said or did that would peg him as liberal. If you asked them, what is it that makes you think that he's left-wing, they couldn't really tell you.
posted by octothorpe at 10:39 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by octothorpe at 10:39 AM on February 27, 2007
Yeah. I mean, from my POV, she's center-right same as her husband (who I tend to describe as "the best Republican president we've had in decades").
I also find it bitterly amusing that the people behind this indend to try and Whitewater as a "scandal" against her. That'd be the same land deal that four different, but all highly partisin and anti-Clinton, special proscutors couldn't find a single thing wrong with.
I'm no fan of either Clinton, but I think the right needs to get a grip on itself. They make sad little jokes about BDS (that'd be "Bush Derangement Syndrome", the idea that us on the left so hate Bush that we're actually insane), periodically do concern trolling about how our "hatred" of Bush is bad for us, but somehow don't seem to notice the huge amount of absolutely frothing at the mouth rabid, 200 proof, genuine *hate* that we see for the Clintons from their side. Sheesh.
posted by sotonohito at 10:42 AM on February 27, 2007
I also find it bitterly amusing that the people behind this indend to try and Whitewater as a "scandal" against her. That'd be the same land deal that four different, but all highly partisin and anti-Clinton, special proscutors couldn't find a single thing wrong with.
I'm no fan of either Clinton, but I think the right needs to get a grip on itself. They make sad little jokes about BDS (that'd be "Bush Derangement Syndrome", the idea that us on the left so hate Bush that we're actually insane), periodically do concern trolling about how our "hatred" of Bush is bad for us, but somehow don't seem to notice the huge amount of absolutely frothing at the mouth rabid, 200 proof, genuine *hate* that we see for the Clintons from their side. Sheesh.
posted by sotonohito at 10:42 AM on February 27, 2007
And then there's this.
Now, it's possible that "liberal" and "left-wing" are substantively different, but what you attribute to pathology can be better attributed to an insufficiently developed political lexicon.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:42 AM on February 27, 2007
Now, it's possible that "liberal" and "left-wing" are substantively different, but what you attribute to pathology can be better attributed to an insufficiently developed political lexicon.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:42 AM on February 27, 2007
Surely this will be the final straw that will...
posted by PlusDistance at 10:42 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by PlusDistance at 10:42 AM on February 27, 2007
"Although she is formidably intelligent she seems cold and..."
In other words:
"WE REPOOBICRANS LIKE STOOPID PREZEEDONTS U DEMECRONTS IZ TOO SMATRZ"
posted by tkchrist at 10:49 AM on February 27, 2007
In other words:
"WE REPOOBICRANS LIKE STOOPID PREZEEDONTS U DEMECRONTS IZ TOO SMATRZ"
posted by tkchrist at 10:49 AM on February 27, 2007
Politicians? More like LOLLERTICIANS.
Let's start image macros sites of our pols.
posted by boo_radley at 10:52 AM on February 27, 2007
Let's start image macros sites of our pols.
posted by boo_radley at 10:52 AM on February 27, 2007
Now, it's possible that "liberal" and "left-wing" are substantively different, but what you attribute to pathology can be better attributed to an insufficiently developed political lexicon.
Kwantsar, the article you linked does not mention Hillary Clinton, nor does it explain how she is left-wing. Her voting record in support of Republican policy would seem to put lie to assertions of being liberal, let alone progressive.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:59 AM on February 27, 2007
Kwantsar, the article you linked does not mention Hillary Clinton, nor does it explain how she is left-wing. Her voting record in support of Republican policy would seem to put lie to assertions of being liberal, let alone progressive.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:59 AM on February 27, 2007
I always find characterizations of Hillary as left-wing to be strangeYou must have missed 'I want to take [the oil companies'] profits'. Not tax those profits, take them. Sounds pretty left-wing to me.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 11:03 AM on February 27, 2007
kwanstar
And then there's this.
Yeah, I liked to title to Figure 4:
And then there's this.
Yeah, I liked to title to Figure 4:
Figure 4posted by Mental Wimp at 11:04 AM on February 27, 2007
Rank Ordering and 95% Confidence Intervals including President
Bust using all non-unanimous roll calls from the 107th Senate.
National Journal Key Votes
It used to be left wing humor wasn't funny. Now it's quite the reverse. You don't need an opinion on the Clintons to wince when you watch this.
posted by rhymer at 11:05 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by rhymer at 11:05 AM on February 27, 2007
I appreciate that it's all too easy to dismiss something as unfunny if you don't agree with the points it's making, but... the only comedy here is the sight of satire falling flat on its face.
posted by Drexen at 11:07 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by Drexen at 11:07 AM on February 27, 2007
You must have missed 'I want to take [the oil companies'] profits'. Not tax those profits, take them. Sounds pretty left-wing to me.
Yes, No Mutant Enemy, in the interests of dispassionate policy discussions and evaluating the worthiness of candidates, let's take the most extreme interpretation we can of the opposition's statements. Put a few bold words in each statement, and then insist that this fairly and responsibly characterizes their ideas. Works for Fox News, and it can work for you!
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:08 AM on February 27, 2007
Yes, No Mutant Enemy, in the interests of dispassionate policy discussions and evaluating the worthiness of candidates, let's take the most extreme interpretation we can of the opposition's statements. Put a few bold words in each statement, and then insist that this fairly and responsibly characterizes their ideas. Works for Fox News, and it can work for you!
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:08 AM on February 27, 2007
Politicians? More like LOLLERTICIANS.
Let's start image macros sites of our pols.
I just started this, if anyone wants to populate it.
posted by interrobang at 11:08 AM on February 27, 2007 [4 favorites]
Let's start image macros sites of our pols.
I just started this, if anyone wants to populate it.
posted by interrobang at 11:08 AM on February 27, 2007 [4 favorites]
Hah, hah, I just realized that Kwanstar thought is was an article showing Hilary to be the most liberal senator because the page is titled "TheMostLiberalSenator-Clinton.pdf". Clinton is the name of the author of the paper. He didn't even read the paper he cited! This is great!
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:10 AM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:10 AM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
Hillary is a poorly drawn caricature.
posted by Roman Graves at 11:13 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by Roman Graves at 11:13 AM on February 27, 2007
If you'd look at the tables on the paper, (your CTRL-F doesn't pick them up), you'd see plenty of ranks.
Don't tell me what I "thought", jackass.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:14 AM on February 27, 2007
Don't tell me what I "thought", jackass.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:14 AM on February 27, 2007
How can such outright personal attacks be considered ok in politics? Whatever happened to fighting on policies not personalities?
posted by djgh at 11:16 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by djgh at 11:16 AM on February 27, 2007
Nice try, Kwantsar.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:18 AM on February 27, 2007
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:18 AM on February 27, 2007
Whenever I behold the hysterical shrieking of the right whenever their thoughts/masturbation fantasies turn to Hilary I can't help but think "aw, not this shit again."
There are drugs to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. I suggest that the wingnuts look into 'em.
posted by clevershark at 11:19 AM on February 27, 2007
There are drugs to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. I suggest that the wingnuts look into 'em.
posted by clevershark at 11:19 AM on February 27, 2007
I love the blonde helmet hair, the thinly disguised resemblance to Camille Paglia and Susan Sontag, the glinty demonic stare of vengeful steel, and the serrated rat teeth.
Still, not necessarily any worse than some caricatures of Condoleezza Rice that I've seen.
Actually, the more I look at it, the more this caricature looks like mid-period Phyllis Schlafly.
posted by blucevalo at 11:19 AM on February 27, 2007
Still, not necessarily any worse than some caricatures of Condoleezza Rice that I've seen.
Actually, the more I look at it, the more this caricature looks like mid-period Phyllis Schlafly.
posted by blucevalo at 11:19 AM on February 27, 2007
How can such outright personal attacks be considered ok in politics? Whatever happened to fighting on policies not personalities?
'Cause the adults are in charge, duh.
posted by interrobang at 11:19 AM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
'Cause the adults are in charge, duh.
posted by interrobang at 11:19 AM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]
9/11 or no 9/11, there's no way in hell I'll let 650,000 dead Iraqis' and 3000 dead US troops' worth of conscience allow me to countenance any mindless right-wing boosterism that wants to tell me the Clintons were worth the kind of irrational hatred I've heard from the sorts of people who want to be comfortable with their prejudices.
I was never much of a fan of Bilary -- at times, the entire Clinton Administration, for all its vaunted wonkiness, felt like Amateur Night -- but at least she wanted to try to solve the health-care crisis and he apologized when this happened. She's a shrew and he's a sleaze, but now I've seen what far worse looks like.
I know better and history will back me up. Getting the usual sweetheart deal on some real estate, firing a White House Travel Office staff, playing games with some tax records, or lying -- even under oath -- about a fling with an intern is a hell of a long way from sanctioning extrajudicial imprisonment and even torture, wiping one's bottom with the US Constitution because "they hate our freedoms," wrecking international relations, destablizing an entire region for no apparent good reason, and destroying hundreds of thousands of lives.
posted by pax digita at 11:20 AM on February 27, 2007 [4 favorites]
I was never much of a fan of Bilary -- at times, the entire Clinton Administration, for all its vaunted wonkiness, felt like Amateur Night -- but at least she wanted to try to solve the health-care crisis and he apologized when this happened. She's a shrew and he's a sleaze, but now I've seen what far worse looks like.
I know better and history will back me up. Getting the usual sweetheart deal on some real estate, firing a White House Travel Office staff, playing games with some tax records, or lying -- even under oath -- about a fling with an intern is a hell of a long way from sanctioning extrajudicial imprisonment and even torture, wiping one's bottom with the US Constitution because "they hate our freedoms," wrecking international relations, destablizing an entire region for no apparent good reason, and destroying hundreds of thousands of lives.
posted by pax digita at 11:20 AM on February 27, 2007 [4 favorites]
What do you mean, "nice try," Mental Wimp? Did you look at the tables? Is Ms. Clinton not there, in the bottom portion of every one of them?
The paper is even cited on the HRC Wikipedia page. (footnote 86)
I'm sorry that your bloodlust is unsated, but the proper form when making such an accusation that is later proven incorrect is to apologize.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:24 AM on February 27, 2007
The paper is even cited on the HRC Wikipedia page. (footnote 86)
I'm sorry that your bloodlust is unsated, but the proper form when making such an accusation that is later proven incorrect is to apologize.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:24 AM on February 27, 2007
I think it's safe to say that the irrational hatred of Hillary a lot of people have mentioned is rooted in some sexism. Yes, she is annoying, but a lot of people are.
Also, I think it was a really stupid thing to focus her campaign marketing around "Hillary" rather than "Clinton". The former makes it too personal, and she doesn't have the charisma to pull it off. Contrast this with "W" in 2000, which was folksy, and bit cavalier which worked for his image then.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:40 AM on February 27, 2007
Also, I think it was a really stupid thing to focus her campaign marketing around "Hillary" rather than "Clinton". The former makes it too personal, and she doesn't have the charisma to pull it off. Contrast this with "W" in 2000, which was folksy, and bit cavalier which worked for his image then.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:40 AM on February 27, 2007
Yes, No Mutant Enemy, in the interests of dispassionate policy discussions and evaluating the worthiness of candidates, let's take the most extreme interpretation we can of the opposition's statements.
When she says she wants to take oil company's profits, what other way is there to interpret it? Seriously?
Also, I think it was a really stupid thing to focus her campaign marketing around "Hillary" rather than "Clinton".
The speculation I heard is that she intends on being the first President Rodham, not the 2nd President Clinton.
If Hillary wins, the United States will have been led by members of the same 2 families for the past 24 years. Maybe she's a good candidate, but by all accounts Jeb Bush would be as well, and he's not running for this exact reason.
posted by b_thinky at 12:03 PM on February 27, 2007
When she says she wants to take oil company's profits, what other way is there to interpret it? Seriously?
Also, I think it was a really stupid thing to focus her campaign marketing around "Hillary" rather than "Clinton".
The speculation I heard is that she intends on being the first President Rodham, not the 2nd President Clinton.
If Hillary wins, the United States will have been led by members of the same 2 families for the past 24 years. Maybe she's a good candidate, but by all accounts Jeb Bush would be as well, and he's not running for this exact reason.
posted by b_thinky at 12:03 PM on February 27, 2007
hardly the most liberal, but not quite as "center right" as many of her sound bites give the impression of.
posted by badstone at 12:06 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by badstone at 12:06 PM on February 27, 2007
but by all accounts Jeb Bush would be as well, and he's not running for this exact reason.
Right, Jeb is declining to run out of integrity to democracy, not because his brother has turned the family name into shit. Sure.
posted by interrobang at 12:10 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Right, Jeb is declining to run out of integrity to democracy, not because his brother has turned the family name into shit. Sure.
posted by interrobang at 12:10 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
also, if you were using that wikipedia article to make your point Kwantsar, why did you cherry pick the most extreme example they gave of her "liberal rating"?
In 2004, the National Journal's study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the current Senate, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and a rating of 100 being most conservative.[84] The 2006 Almanac of American Politics rated her, with most liberal = 100, most conservative = 0, according to a three-dimensional spectrum: Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68.[85] Another analysis by three political scientists found her as likely being the sixth-to-eighth-most liberal Senator.[86]
posted by badstone at 12:12 PM on February 27, 2007
In 2004, the National Journal's study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the current Senate, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and a rating of 100 being most conservative.[84] The 2006 Almanac of American Politics rated her, with most liberal = 100, most conservative = 0, according to a three-dimensional spectrum: Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68.[85] Another analysis by three political scientists found her as likely being the sixth-to-eighth-most liberal Senator.[86]
posted by badstone at 12:12 PM on February 27, 2007
badstone writes "hardly the most liberal, but not quite as 'center right' as many of her sound bites give the impression of."
Certainly center-right in terms of modern liberal democracies globally; center-left in the US, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:27 PM on February 27, 2007
Certainly center-right in terms of modern liberal democracies globally; center-left in the US, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:27 PM on February 27, 2007
why did you cherry pick the most extreme example they gave of her "liberal rating"?
When trying to call into question the assertion that characterizations of Hillary as left-wing (are) strange, almost pathological, it behooves the questioner to find an unpathological study claiming that Hillary is indeed a liberal (or left-winger). Because I was arguing against BP's claim, it seemed sensible to cite research that made the argument strongly. What do you want me to do, scan the far-flung Trotskyist corners of the internet, looking for evidence that supports BP's argument?
And, after looking at those three cites, do you think that characterizing Hillary as a left-winger (in US terms) is "almost pathological"? Or does it seem like a conclusion that a sane, healthy person could reasonably draw?
Good God, first I'm accused of not reading the article, then I am accused of cherry-picking. Can we get back to the part where we discuss the claim itself, rather than the distractions in the periphery? To me, such an approach seems like a reality-based method of having a meaningful discussion.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:28 PM on February 27, 2007
When trying to call into question the assertion that characterizations of Hillary as left-wing (are) strange, almost pathological, it behooves the questioner to find an unpathological study claiming that Hillary is indeed a liberal (or left-winger). Because I was arguing against BP's claim, it seemed sensible to cite research that made the argument strongly. What do you want me to do, scan the far-flung Trotskyist corners of the internet, looking for evidence that supports BP's argument?
And, after looking at those three cites, do you think that characterizing Hillary as a left-winger (in US terms) is "almost pathological"? Or does it seem like a conclusion that a sane, healthy person could reasonably draw?
Good God, first I'm accused of not reading the article, then I am accused of cherry-picking. Can we get back to the part where we discuss the claim itself, rather than the distractions in the periphery? To me, such an approach seems like a reality-based method of having a meaningful discussion.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:28 PM on February 27, 2007
How can such outright personal attacks be considered ok in politics on MetaFilter?
posted by davejay at 12:46 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by davejay at 12:46 PM on February 27, 2007
but by all accounts Jeb Bush would be as well
By all accounts? Yeah, right.
posted by blucevalo at 12:58 PM on February 27, 2007
By all accounts? Yeah, right.
posted by blucevalo at 12:58 PM on February 27, 2007
Kwantsar: When trying to call into question the assertion that characterizations of Hillary as left-wing (are) strange, almost pathological, it behooves the questioner to find an unpathological study claiming that Hillary is indeed a liberal (or left-winger).The paper you linked only claims to rate Senators relative to one another. It wouldn't support the proposition that any genuinely "left-wing" senators even exist.
It doesn't give any of the numbers used to prepare the included charts, and the charts are only labelled in the vaguest possible way.
The paper, titled "The Most Liberal Senator?" spends a fair amount of time comparing Kerry to ... Bush. Because Bush would have done a heckuva job in the Senate, or something.
All in all, I imagine I'm wasting my breath. Mapping every political move and position onto some constricting, imaginary "left-right" axis is stupid enough. Tallying up a legislator's voting record and assigning a "liberalness score" as if it meant something is insane.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:22 PM on February 27, 2007
interrobang, I have uploaded the first contribution to LOLLERTICIANS. Now where is quonsar's pissing elephant?
posted by wendell at 1:29 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by wendell at 1:29 PM on February 27, 2007
Don't tell me what I "thought", jackass.
...
Or does it seem like a conclusion that a sane, healthy person could reasonably draw?
as others pointed out, you seem unwilling -- or unable -- to understand that it's intellectually dishonest -- or just plain dumb -- to compare Hillary to her 99 colleagues in the Senate, among which, with the possible exception of poor old Teddy Kennedy, there is no liberal in sight, much less a -- the horror! - "left-winger".
so, yeah, she's certainly more "liberal" than, say, er ex-colleague Rick Santorum. or, you know, more liberal than Orrin Hatch. but that's a little like saying that a man whose dick is narrower than his thumb is hung like a horse only because you compare him to 99 newborns.
posted by matteo at 1:40 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
...
Or does it seem like a conclusion that a sane, healthy person could reasonably draw?
as others pointed out, you seem unwilling -- or unable -- to understand that it's intellectually dishonest -- or just plain dumb -- to compare Hillary to her 99 colleagues in the Senate, among which, with the possible exception of poor old Teddy Kennedy, there is no liberal in sight, much less a -- the horror! - "left-winger".
so, yeah, she's certainly more "liberal" than, say, er ex-colleague Rick Santorum. or, you know, more liberal than Orrin Hatch. but that's a little like saying that a man whose dick is narrower than his thumb is hung like a horse only because you compare him to 99 newborns.
posted by matteo at 1:40 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Billed as a "Michael Moore-style documentary"
Oh Michael Moore style, right: so it's going to get a wide release, be entertaining as well as informative, if a little manipulative with the facts, and make a pile of cash? Is that what they meant?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:40 PM on February 27, 2007
Oh Michael Moore style, right: so it's going to get a wide release, be entertaining as well as informative, if a little manipulative with the facts, and make a pile of cash? Is that what they meant?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:40 PM on February 27, 2007
The "Stop Hillary" campaign is gathering its forces early in the hope that Sen Clinton's campaign can be derailed before she wins the Democratic nomination, after which they fear she may be unstoppable.
I don't think conservative ideas will have much sway in the democratic primary, but other then that I hope they succeed. Fuck her.
posted by delmoi at 1:45 PM on February 27, 2007
I don't think conservative ideas will have much sway in the democratic primary, but other then that I hope they succeed. Fuck her.
posted by delmoi at 1:45 PM on February 27, 2007
(That is to say I hope she does not with the nomination. If she did get the nomination then I guess I would vote for her, but bleh)
posted by delmoi at 1:46 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by delmoi at 1:46 PM on February 27, 2007
And then there's this. The "clinton" in the file name refers to the Author, Joshua D. Clinton
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on February 27, 2007
delmoi writes "And then there's this. The 'clinton' in the file name refers to the Author, Joshua D. Clinton"
Shit, man. You've gotta start reading these threads all the way through before you comment.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:10 PM on February 27, 2007
Shit, man. You've gotta start reading these threads all the way through before you comment.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:10 PM on February 27, 2007
Why would either party attack candidates of the other party at this stage? It doesn't make sense to me. If they have good dirt or ammo on someone, they should save it until they can use it more effectively. If they attack all of the candidates of the other party with all of the skeletons they can find, then they are creating the possibility that the person with no skeletons will emerge victorious. And that is clearly not what they want.
posted by flarbuse at 2:28 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by flarbuse at 2:28 PM on February 27, 2007
So yesterday we were smearing Gore, today Hillary, who do we attack tomorrow? Edwards or Obama?
posted by octothorpe at 2:51 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by octothorpe at 2:51 PM on February 27, 2007
"The Hillary Show" is so sad in so many ways.
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton (or Kerry or Dean for that matter) but those cartoons are miserably lame.
posted by speug at 3:20 PM on February 27, 2007
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton (or Kerry or Dean for that matter) but those cartoons are miserably lame.
posted by speug at 3:20 PM on February 27, 2007
I guess I don't get it.
Is hearing a cartoon version of John Kerry say that we need to invest in the education of the next generation supposed to make me think that we shouldn't invest in the education of the next generation?
What's the intended angle, here? I just don't get what they're going for.
posted by Flunkie at 3:35 PM on February 27, 2007
Is hearing a cartoon version of John Kerry say that we need to invest in the education of the next generation supposed to make me think that we shouldn't invest in the education of the next generation?
What's the intended angle, here? I just don't get what they're going for.
posted by Flunkie at 3:35 PM on February 27, 2007
Flunkie writes "Is hearing a cartoon version of John Kerry say that we need to invest in the education of the next generation supposed to make me think that we shouldn't invest in the education of the next generation?"
It would seem to be right-wing populist politics in a nutshell. Note the word "populist" -- actual right-wing politicians will generally do something quite different and line their own pockets doing it, but what you describe is more or less how the Rush-enamored wingnuts shape their own opinions.
posted by clevershark at 3:45 PM on February 27, 2007
It would seem to be right-wing populist politics in a nutshell. Note the word "populist" -- actual right-wing politicians will generally do something quite different and line their own pockets doing it, but what you describe is more or less how the Rush-enamored wingnuts shape their own opinions.
posted by clevershark at 3:45 PM on February 27, 2007
I find Hilary to be neither left nor right, but completely devoid of principles; as all successful politicians must be.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:48 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:48 PM on February 27, 2007
Hillary.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2007
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2007
bthinky
When she says she wants to take oil company's profits, what other way is there to interpret it? Seriously?
By taxation?
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:12 PM on February 27, 2007
When she says she wants to take oil company's profits, what other way is there to interpret it? Seriously?
By taxation?
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:12 PM on February 27, 2007
So yesterday we were smearing Gore, today Hillary, who do we attack tomorrow? Edwards or Obama?
All of the above, plus any candidates who haven't yet declared.
posted by blucevalo at 4:23 PM on February 27, 2007
All of the above, plus any candidates who haven't yet declared.
posted by blucevalo at 4:23 PM on February 27, 2007
By taxation?
Hey buddy, only Republicans tax. Liberal collectivist commie scum are the ones who take.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:13 PM on February 27, 2007
Hey buddy, only Republicans tax. Liberal collectivist commie scum are the ones who take.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:13 PM on February 27, 2007
By Taxation?So why did she not say 'tax those profits' or 'take some percentage of those profits'?
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 12:44 AM on March 1, 2007
Because, No Mutant Enemy, as she has shown by her past behavior, both as a senator and as First Lady, she is part of a secret international socialist cabal that wants to nationalize all industry and bring power to the proletariat in an anarcho-syndicalist collective organization with rotating executive boards that prevent any individual from becoming too important. Yeah, that's probably why, not because she assumed that you would take her statement to mean through taxation, the usual way that government takes windfall back. No, that would be way too ordinary for such a black-hearted, radical leftist as Hillary Clinton. And we know she is because of that paper Kwantsar cited showing she is the most liberal senator. You see, it's easy when you pay attention.
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:24 AM on March 1, 2007
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:24 AM on March 1, 2007
I'm not saying she's a 'black-hearted, radical leftist', I'm explaining why she could be characterized as left-wing. You think she's not left-wing then? So
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 5:15 AM on March 2, 2007
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."indicates that she's committed to free-market individualism?
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 5:15 AM on March 2, 2007
Do you honestly believe that right-wingers currently elected in the US government are committed to free-market individualism, as embodied in the works of Adam Smith?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:28 PM on March 2, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:28 PM on March 2, 2007
So, No Mutant Enemy, you DO believe she has some sinister plot to take away windfall profits through some diabolical means other than taxation? Please, share.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:53 PM on March 2, 2007
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:53 PM on March 2, 2007
Blazecock Pileon: No, I certainly don't; partly, but not entirely, because 'right-wing' != 'free market', but that's not what I'm debating. Mental Wimp: I'm happy to share, but you also should pay attention. To summarize; Blazecock Pileon said 'I always find characterizations of Hillary as left-wing to be strange'; I attempted to explain how that conception might come about. (Note that I did not endorse it.) You then appear to assume that because I mention a quote which tends to indicate that Hillary could be characterized as left-wing (although I still don't do so), I thereby regard her as the worst possible example of such. b_thinky wonders if there can be some other interpretation of Hillary's quote, and you offer one. She said 'take'; maybe she meant 'tax'?. I wonder why she didn't say what you think she meant. You get all snarky, and mis-represent what I said, which is, basically, that it's actually quite understandable, if you read opinions attributed to her, that she be characterized as left-wing. Is she? I have no idea. Did I suggest that she is? No. Do I care? Not really. I'm just trying to help. Do I believe what a politician - any politician - says? Hardly ever.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 4:10 PM on March 2, 2007
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 4:10 PM on March 2, 2007
I get it now. Taxation = left wing, starving the government = right wing. So simple.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:19 AM on March 3, 2007
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:19 AM on March 3, 2007
I so wish that, with impunity, I could run through Washington DC with a spraypaint gun and hit every congressperson with the same color. I'd be exercising my first ammendment rights of free speech. The color wouldn't be red (republican). It wouldn't be blue (democrat). It wouldn't be green (environment or financial). I'd use yellow, cuz they are, and should be, afraid of US.
I wouldn't be right. I'd be correct.
People for Hillary Clinton and people against Hillary Clinton are not opposing teams on a football gridiron. They're alternately defense and offense for the same team.
Do you know who their enemy is? I'll let ya look in the mirror, and then you get one guess.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:48 AM on March 3, 2007
I wouldn't be right. I'd be correct.
People for Hillary Clinton and people against Hillary Clinton are not opposing teams on a football gridiron. They're alternately defense and offense for the same team.
Do you know who their enemy is? I'll let ya look in the mirror, and then you get one guess.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:48 AM on March 3, 2007
Mental Wimp, are you being deliberately obtuse, are you simply failing to grasp what I'm saying, or are you just really stupid? I did not say 'taxation = left wing', I said that 'We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good' and 'I want to take [the oil companies'] profits' explain why Hillary could easily be characterized as left wing. The first quote particularly exemplifies collectivism; it virtually defines it. Given that 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' mean anything now, the relation between 'left-wing' and collectivism is fairly strong. Are you able to offer an example of anyone perceived as being right-wing (or even centrist) who espouses similar views? If not, the characterization of Hillary as left-wing is explained.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:05 AM on March 4, 2007
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:05 AM on March 4, 2007
I guess I'm just stupid, because to me the propositions
'We (the people) are going to take things away from you (us) for the common good' + 'I (your democratically elected representative) want to take (tax)...profits' = 'taxation'
Clearly you believe those phrases = 'left-wing'; you stated as much.
Combined with the transitive property (A=B and B=C => A=C), this means that you believe 'taxation = left wing'. Now, if there is another interpretation to those phrases that I quote from you, please share. Otherwise, I remain your humbly stupid servant.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:36 PM on March 5, 2007
'We (the people) are going to take things away from you (us) for the common good' + 'I (your democratically elected representative) want to take (tax)...profits' = 'taxation'
Clearly you believe those phrases = 'left-wing'; you stated as much.
Combined with the transitive property (A=B and B=C => A=C), this means that you believe 'taxation = left wing'. Now, if there is another interpretation to those phrases that I quote from you, please share. Otherwise, I remain your humbly stupid servant.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:36 PM on March 5, 2007
Well, I would still go with failing to grasp what I'm saying, but you know best. You see, what's happening is that you're re-wording what Hillary said, then saying that it doesn't mean what I'm saying the original meant. And you're right, it doesn't, because you've changed the words. But that's not what Hillary said, so no; your interpretation doesn't hold.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:08 AM on March 6, 2007
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:08 AM on March 6, 2007
Well, I would still go with failing to grasp what I'm saying, but you know best. You see, what's happening is that you're re-wording what Hillary said, then saying that it doesn't mean what I'm saying the original meant. And you're right, it doesn't, because you've changed the words. But that's not what Hillary said, so no; your interpretation doesn't hold.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:08 AM on March 6, 2007
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:08 AM on March 6, 2007
(Crap! How did that happen?)
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:09 AM on March 6, 2007
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 2:09 AM on March 6, 2007
« Older US: Secret CIA Prisoners Still Missing -... | There's nothin' Nietzsche couldn't teach ya... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by petsounds at 10:23 AM on February 27, 2007