The Candidates: Hillary
March 14th, 2007 | by Scott |For the entry and discussion on Rudy Giuliani, click here
For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here
For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here
As we continue along we jump back across the aisle to the Dems. Rumors of more candidates jumping into the saturated Republican field underscores the uncertainty in that grand old party. However, the Democrats seem to be a little bit more stabilized with 3 front-runners and the rest lagging painfully behind (insert AI comparisons here).
Who better to look at then America’s senator: Hillary Clinton. The sheer mention of her name is enough to provoke some 40 million Americans to begin pulling out their hair, rending their clothes and doing something akin to spontaneous combustion. Yes, she is that polarizing. But is she electable?
(Note: let me repeat that this is not intended to be an in-depth analysis of issues and positions. The comments can deal with that. These pros and cons deal with profile, aesthetics and electability. And let’s face it: electability and issues do not walk hand in hand in this country.)
Pros: A strong, widely recognized last name that carries a tremendous amount of clout; the deepest war chest with a tremendous ability to raise money; the first legitimate female aspirant to the presidency; Initiated the Children’s Health Insurance Program while first lady among other works; a champion of stopping violence against women; the power of Bill.
Cons: Far and away the most controversial and polarizing figure in the field who is absolutely hated by conservative Republicans; unspectacular Senatorial career; for the Iraq war before she was against it; does not possess her husband’s charisma or likability much less his ability to play the middle; past scandals and controversies (as all candidates do); does not have the clearly defined positions as her primary opponents do.
Analysis: Hillary is the front-runner for the democratic nod and it is her nomination to lose. It’s a long way until February and her constant sniping with Obama could deplete her coffers and pave the way for a third candidate (i.e. John Edwards) to break through.
However the power of her name and the presence of Bill makes her a formidable opponent and one that the GOP is scared to death of. There are still some who will make the contention that there is no way she could ever be elected. That’s denial at its finest.
However popular she might be and despite the cachet of the name, however, there are many blights on her record and the Dems must realize that she might not be the best candidate to reach out to middle America.
The prospect of seeing on a national scale the never realized Giuliani-Clinton showdown is tempting. She is polling well and is a money-raising machine.
But what does she believe? Who is she really? I don’t believe that she is the ultra-crazed liberal that the far right have painter her as. But I don’t believe she is the best candidate either.
Thoughts?
51 Responses to “The Candidates: Hillary”
By Kevin Bussey on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Yeah,
God help us if she wins. I’d rather have her husband back.
By Scott on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
That can be arranged Kevin
By Politics and Culture on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think she’s electable. I mean, would you vote for THIS???
By Scott on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
That’s hilarious.
By joe on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
New Yorkers love her and love for any politician is a hard thing to come by around here. And it’s not just NYC folks I’m talking about. If you travel about an hour north of NYC the people and their ideologies aren’t much different than any other conservatives around the country. These “upstate” folks love her, too. They love her b/c she has worked hard for the agricultural industry and small businesses through initiatives like Food to Fork. Her ideas are practical and New Yorkers love practicality.
By justin on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
If Hillary’s last name weren’t Clinton, she wouldn’t be anywhere near a front runner. She’s done very little in the Senate (obama hasn’t done much either) she’s polarizing, the left is turning on her (see david geffen, and several Clinton lackeys from the former administration).
Her universal health care will be a bad thing. I know many of you here support it, but we are not a small wealthy nation that can afford something like this. And besides that, its inefficient. If we have universal health care, you will be assigned a doctor to go to, and if you want a second opinion, you either have to pay for it yourself or forgetaboutit. What’s going to happen though, is wealthy people will just pay into the system and not use it. Many of the best doctors will go into private practice and only serve people who pay them straight up. Leaving the normal people with mediocre doctors and no choice in who they go see. Bad idea.
By len on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Her biggest problem may be that she is not her husband. For all the issues/troubles that Bill Clinton had, he was still a pretty likeable person. And very few could give a better speech. When Hillary talks it has the same effect as nails on a chalkboard. When her record is questioned or when she is put on the spot, I just believe that the Senator will do/say something stupid or react in such a way that will cost her the candidacy.
By Scott on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Following Joe’s comment above: The fact that she carried 67% in this most recent election shows a tremendous amount of respect for her that the state of NY has.
But Len, I think you might be right. She doesn’t have the same quality that her hubby did/does. But if she turns him out full scale on the campaign trail he might be able to counter-act her lack of people skills.
By Scott on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Justin, of course we can afford it. There are many different wrinkles and options to provide universal care that incorporates far more nuance than what you suggest. To say that it can’t work and it is inefficient by propping up a worst-case scenario is misleading.
Universal Health Care does not necessarily mean free health care. It means available to all in an affordable manner.
By jasonk on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Oh, she’s got cache, baby. She’s got cache up the yin-yang!
Sorry.
Scott, your observations are absolutely spot-on. She should not be overlooked, or underestimated. She can get the nomination, and very possibly will get it. I still question whether people, even liberal democrats, will have what it takes to vote for her. They may say they will, and talk a good game, but when they get into that voting booth, and its them and their conscience, will they really put her at the switch? And if they do, will a majority of people on either side of the aisle be willing to vote for her in the general election? I think there is too much for her to overcome to actually get elected. Track well in the polls? Sure. But actually get elected? I don’t see it happening.
By greg on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
She should change her name to “Seven”…
By justin on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
We can afford it til taxes get so high that companies leave the country or quit doing business all together. Just the prescription drug plan for seniors cost how much exactly? And how much did they think it was gonna cost?
This website I think gives a fairly balanced view of things, it gives pros and cons for each position. The cons vastly outweigh the benefits though, imho.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
By jasonk on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Or soda. Do you think people liked “Blanche” the first time they heard it?
By Jonathan on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
I’ll have to agree with Scott that it’s premature to pronounce universal health care in any possible form dead on arrival.
On a related note, I had a professor from the Netherlands visit me earlier this week, and we had some very interesting conversations. He was very upfront that the socialist system they have has its advantages (e.g. minimum safety net of income and health care guaranteed to all) and disadvantages (e.g. high taxes). To him, the most important advantages was the high level of elder care that is guaranteed to people like his mother.
In response to the question about the guaranteed minimum income being an incentive not to work, he responded that it really isn’t a significant problem among the Dutch because that sort of “free-loading” is just not done in their culture (though it is more of a problem among immigrants).
The other big difference that he mentioned about their system is that it really is very difficult and not really acceptable culturally for someone to really stand out above crowd.
By greg on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
It’s bubbly, it’s refreshing.
By Belinda on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
I’m all for universal health care. It should be a crime that people can’t afford health care. My daughter just changed jobs. One insurance was terminated, and the other doesn’t kick in for 60 days. And guess what? She’s SICK. She’s 26 yrs. old. She has a car payment and a mortgage - she can’t afford to go to the doctor and get medication without insurance. I have MS. I’m fortunate - I have goverment BC/BS insurance. All in all, it pays very well. I take weekly injections. Do you have any idea how much that medication costs?? Hundreds. I’m able to get it through mail order - 3 month supply for $35. People that don’t have insurance can’t afford to do this. And our stories pale in comparison to what so many have to suffer through.
Can we afford it? Think about what’s being spent on this unforgiveable war.
Hillary . . . she’s not my favorite, but I’ll vote for her before I vote for the next republican in line. Even on their worst day, the democrat cares more about their fellow man than a republican on his best day. You have to admit it - programs to help the poor have come to us thru a democrat.
By Amy on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
“…the Dems must realize that she might not be the best candidate to reach out to middle America.” Most all of the people I know hate her. (I live in Middle TN). “Hate” is a strong word, but it is the word I have heard used, believe it or not. I guess she is out as far as becoming a unifying candidate.
and “I don’t believe that she is the ultra-crazed liberal that the far right have painter her as.” I totally agree with that one!
I greatly respect the woman personally.
By Jeff on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Belinda,
“Even on their worst day, the democrat cares more about their fellow man than a republican on his best day.”
I don’t claim either of these parties because, as my previous posts have shown, I’m miserably jaded about them both.
However, the above statement is utterly and completely false. In fact, I think it is that kind of rhetoric that divides the country further and, therefore, takes us further away from good solutions.
Rather than claiming that certain individuals “care more”, we need looking deeper that the individual issues and realize that the philosophies upon which the policies are based are equally valid philosophies that are in great tension when put into practice. Good policy is only found when striking a balance within the tension, and demonizing those that differ from us with pejorative statements like Belinda’s only hinder the progress towards balance.
The social policies of conservatives and liberals can be summarized by the tension between personal responsibility and empathy. Conservatives tend to give priority to the former, while liberals give priority to the latter. Good policy is found when personal responsibility and empathy are balanced.
For further reflection on these two philosophies, see this post on my blog (shameless plug):
http://jaborch99.blogspot.com/2007/01/assault-social-politics.html
I think Belinda’s comments illustrate the polarization and division that the to ruling parties have created in our nation (and that campaign finance reform has contributed to). The prejudicial rhetoric of the extremeist hate-mongers at Moveon.org and Michael Savage has taken hold of our language. Rather than seeking the good and truth in the viewpoints of others, we first seek to condemn and malign.
Most posters on this blog are repulsed by churches that say, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re not a Christian.” However, I don’t find that same repulsion being expressed at the same mentality in the political realm, which says, “If you don’t agree with me, you (a)don’t care about your fellow man, (b) don’t care about your country, etc.”
By the way, Scott, I was leading singing the other day at church and taking requests. Someone asked for “America the Beautiful.” Not knowing how to decline the request without seeming like an unpatriotic jerk, I begrudgingly led it, thinking about you the whole time!
Sorry for the verbose comment. I’m like the energizer bunny sometimes …
By jasonk on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Belinda sounds to me like my daughters when they were teenagers, and complained when I refused to hand them everything they wanted. They told me that I was not being compassionate to their needs. Instead, I gave them everything they needed, and taught them to work and earn the money if there was something they wanted.
Giving people healthcare for free, handing them a check for not working, feeding them when they did not make a contribution will destroy our society as surely as giving a child every thing they want will destroy a child.
By Darla on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
This is your sister-in-law. Enjoy your blog, read it most everyday. I all I have to say is beware of Hillary!
By KS on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Hillary is a very different candidate for me. Her record shows her as more conservative than Barrack Hussein Obama, but to many she is veiwed as more liberal. I do think she is the GOP’s best shot at winning an election.
The senario that I have nightmares about is her getting the nomination, the GOP putting up a more middle-of-the-road candidate, and then the conservatives putting up a candidate to split the GOP vote.
By scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
I agree with the fact that demonizing the side opposite of my personal feelings is neither conducive to the discussion or indicative of mature Christianity. Nothing bugs me more than the practice on the extremes of using names to vilify and dismiss. Calling Edwards the “Breck Girl” or pointing out Hussein as Barack’s middle name every time you write it is childish. It would be the same if I did it with GW or anybody I disagree with.
I think Belinda does hit at the frustration that so many in this country have by feeling so betrayed that the mantle of “compassionate conservatism” was abandoned, in my opinion, post 9/11.
Observing the tension that Jeff mentions is important. For those who are opposed to “entitlements” often use the maxim about teaching someone to fish rather than giving them one. To which my response is that is should never be considered an either/or. We can’t expect personal responsibility if the playing field is so skewed that many in this country can’t even begin to get ahead.
I think my GOP friends would resist strongly the accusations that they don’t care about “the least of these.” Although I disagree strongly with traditional republican positions on how to deal with the disadvantaged I don’t believe that most republicans don’t care.
Equally absurd, and ridiculous to me, is the idea that those of us who are more progressively aligned politically want to destroy the country by making over-use of hand-outs. Universal health-care does not mean free. There are ways to proceed without “destroying our society.”
By Jonathan on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Jeff,
Well written response! I would tend to agree, though I’m not sure the best policy is always found at the middle of the road between these two particular extremes…but it’s probably a good place to start.
jasonk,
Enough with the hyperbole about societal destruction. No one is proposing giving anyone everything the want. The question is whether or not the safety net that our society provides to the least of these can be improved. We may disagree on what would constitute an improvement.
By scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Amy, much of what I see from living in the south is outright hatred toward Hillary. Most of those I’ve met who hate her are Christians. It’s sad.
By scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Darla, thanks. Great to see you on here.
KS, the reason why people see her as more liberal is because she has been vilified to the point of caricature. Many can’t look on her in a rational, objective way. She’s not my favorite candidate by a long-shot. But she’s not the anti-christ either.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Belinda,
Take a look at places where the Democrats have ruled for decades (Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Washington D.C.). How are the poor doing in those places?
You should be careful about making the claim that the Democrats have it all together when it comes to social justice. Because the facts tell a different story.
And Scott, referring to John Edwards as The Breck Girl is not childish. It is funny. Just like calling attention to President Bush’s use of words like “Strategery.” It is funny. We all need to lighten up when it comes to political discourse.
By Scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, you are right. I was trying to find one that was less offensive.
By greg on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Hillary Clinton Tries To Woo Voters By Rescinding Candidacy
By justin on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Belinda and others,
What level of universal health care would be acceptable? Should you have access to every single drug that is in existance? The absolute best doctor in the world for whatever ails you? You gotta ask these questions because they are important. Sure, I don’t think anyone would disagree straight up with the desire for everyone to have health insurance… the problem is how to implement it in a fair way that gives people choices on which doctors to use, how to do it without increasing medical cost (supply and demand will raise the prices when more people can “afford” to go to the doctor)… its a difficult thing. I mean, part of the reason health care is so expensive is because companies started buying health insurance for their employees… people start going to to doctor more frequently because insurance makes it cheaper, but because they aren’t paying insurance directly, they don’t see how their extra trips end up raising the cost of health insurance.
We’ve got to change the system. The government can pay for it, but leave the choice up to people. Get rid of large corporate plans. Require by law health insurance for every individual in the nation. Give a tax credit of a certain amount of money per person and per family. Mandate health savings accounts instead of copays (this will keep people from running to the doctor every time they feel slightly under the weather, cause they are paying from an account rather than just a 10 dollar co pay.
There are things to do that won’t harm the country and accomplish the same things. But the democrats don’t want to do it, because it still gives people freedom to make their own decisions, and republicans don’t want to do it, cause they’ve got insurance lobbyists.
And btw, I’m glad you convinced me that my dad hates poor people. Stupid Republican. He’d been fooling me all these years by giving a third of his income away to poverty relief efforts in our hometown, but you’ve shown me the light. He obviously doesn’t care as much about the poor as a democrat does.
By Scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Let’s keep it civil. That thread has been addressed.
By jasonk on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Scott, it was Belinda who fired the shot across our bow, when she referred to Republicans as not caring about the poor: “Even on their worst day, the democrat cares more about their fellow man than a republican on his best day.” I took offense to it, and reacted accordingly. I believe that in the same way a person can “destroy” a child by handing him everything he wants, if certain people with Socialist leanings have their way, they could “destroy” our society. Belinda has indicated on this blog that she believes America as a Socialist state would not be entirely a bad thing. Comments like that frighten me.
As for referring to Edwards as the “Breck Girl,” or referring to Obama by his middle name (which is Hussein, by the way), why is that childish? Were you aware that Chris Rock referred to W as a “retard?” A man who has an MBA from Harvard, and knows how to fly jet aircraft, and because the media have portrayed him as unintelligent, people call him a retard. I have had students in my community college classes that think W is stupid, because that’s what they’ve heard from people on the left (and they could not get into a four year school–what does that make them?). There are plenty of reasons for the left to disagree with the Bush administration (and you have intelligently made those arguments here), why do so many on the left resort to Daily Show tactics, using humor, sarcasm, and ad hominem attacks to make their point?
And what is wrong with referring to Obama by his middle name, which is Hussein? Is he ashamed of his name? Is he afraid of it? Are people on the left afraid of it? Fact is, when you step into the voting booth, it will have the entire name of each candidate on the ballot. What then? Should we ask the election board to leave off the full names of certain candidates, because we are afraid that people will not want a former Muslim who has the same name as one of the most horrible dictators in recent memory? You know that hiding from the facts is no way to act, and for that reason, when ever I refer to Mr. Obama, I will remind people that his name is Hussein. I will not, however, remind people that his last name rhymes with…well…nevermind.
On a different note, on your recommendation, I am listening to the newly purchased album from my sweetheart, Patty Griffin. Great music. Thanks.
By Scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Jason, I don’t support or condone the rantings of Rock or others. I agree that the Daily Show can go to far. Both sides are guilty of that as I mentioned in the comment above.
I support raising the level and tone of debate in this country. People calling GW a “retard” or the Dixie Chicks the “Dipsy Chunks” does not do that. Instead it plays to the lowest common denominator and draws stark battle lines that mute discourse.
And that is what both sides do. By developing demeaning and dismissing sobriquets for those to which we take issue we mute our message.
By justin on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
BTW, Jon Stewart stood up for Bush on Monday night. They were showing the protests in south america wrought with bush effagies and pictures of him with a hitler mustache. Stewart stopped after the clips were finished and said emphatically, “He’s not hitler.” Its obvious that Stewart doesn’t agree with the president, and doesn’t mind calling him dumb, but at least he’s intelligent enough to realize that he’s not Adolph Hitler.
Jon Stewart gets bonus points this week.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Scott and Jason –
Along those lines, you might want to read This Post from Tina.
I can relate with a lot of what she says.
By jasonk on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
PC–I can’t see it from work, so I’ll check it out later.
Scott–I call my favorite home store “Homo Depot,” my favorite tex-mex fast food restaurant “Taco Smell,” and my favorite seafood restaurant “Dead Lobster.” I just thought Dipsy Chunks was kinder and gentler than Dixie Pigs.
I know you do not condone Chris Rock. But you are guilty of dissing the right plenty of times, even in jest. When I use these terms to describe that which I do not care for or agree with, it is no different than anything Jon Stewart does (except that when I say it, it isn’t as funny as Stewart, and I am not paid as much for saying it). If saying what I say mutes discourse, as you put it, so does all use of satire. Why does the left get to be funny, but the right is muting discourse?
This morning a radio station was giving away tickets to Cirque de Sole. I quoted Doug Heffernan when my wife wanted me to try and win: “You mean, cirque de so GAY?” Its just funny, and expresses a point. That’s all.
By the way, Point of Grace played at our church last Friday. I always call them Four Her. Or Point of Disgrace.
By Scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
I’ll concede the point. I fear I’m not being succinct anyway.
And I hate not being succinct.
By Belinda on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Obviously, I have used the wrong words again. I say some things to make people THINK.
I’m still not totally sure why everyone got so upset over my comment. Democrats gave us the 40-hr. work week, overtime, etc. I have done some investigative work of my own . . . Until 2004, the last democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter. And that was my first election to vote in!
No one has a problem dogging out a democrat and their “liberal” ideas, but you don’t seem to like it when I reverse the roles.
I don’t believe the majority of people want a “handout.” We have to realize that making minimum wage isn’t going to cut it. A lot of these people have no health insurance. We take too much for granted. Any of you ever read Larry James’s blog?? Very enlighting.
As for a socialist nation, have any of you ever lived in one? Or have you just heard about them? Socialism was practiced in Acts when the disciples sold all they had and gave to the poor. There are a lot of inequities in this country. Do you realize in Japan, CEOs can only make six times what the lowest paid worker makes?? Compare that with the ridiculous salaries made here.
By len on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Belinda,
the “Socialism” practiced in Acts was voluntary. And it is not the socialism practiced by eastern block countries.
The problem with your statements is not that they made people think. It is that they are closed-minded. You don’t like songs that you have never heard. Who cares that In Christ Alone is one of the most moving, solid worship songs to me. In your opinion, it is new therefore it is bad.
Refusing to vote for a Republican 2 years before the election is not open-minded discourse making us think. It is a narrow-minded statement that closes all discourse. That is why the complaints.
By Scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Gonna be a few bumps in the road with so many strong-minded people on this blog.
By KS on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Here’s a random question: Who’s winning the tournament? Or more importantly who’s winning Bybee’s bracket, cause it sure ain’t me?
By KS on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Sorry thought I was on the other blog
By justin on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Belinda,
Do you know how many people make minimum wage in this country?
How about these statistics from the Department of Labor
# Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent. (See table 1 and table 7.)
# About 4 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 2 percent of men. (See table 1.)
# Nearly 3 percent of white hourly-paid workers earned $5.15 or less, compared with about 2 percent for both blacks and Hispanics or Latinos. The figure for Asians was about 1 percent. Among whites and Hispanics or Latinos, women were about twice as likely as men to earn the Federal minimum wage or less. (See table 1.)
# Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than persons who are married. (See table 8.)
# Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, about 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum or less, compared with about 1 percent for those who had obtained a college degree. (See table 6.)
# Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were much more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 7 percent versus 1 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)
# By occupational group, the proportion of hourly-paid workers whose earnings were reported at or below $5.15 ranged from less than 1 percent for persons employed in management, professional, and related occupations, to about 9 percent for those in service occupations. About three in four workers earning $5.15 or less in 2004 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food service jobs. (See table 4.)
# Among industry groups, the proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was highest in leisure and hospitality (about 15 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in food services and drinking places. For many of these workers, tips supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)
# Among the four broad geographic regions, the West had the lowest proportion of hourly-paid workers with earnings at or below $5.15, at under 2 percent. This compared with about 3 percent for the other regions. In 2004, 24 states and the District of Columbia had a proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage that exceeded the national average (2.7 percent); 22 states had a lower proportion. It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing minimum wage standards that exceed the Federal level of $5.15 per hour. (See table 2 and table 3.)
# The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979, when data first began to be collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
By jasonk on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple was a Socialist group too. That one turned out pretty well.
By Scott on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Why does this happen on threads mentioning Hillary?
By justin on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think Hillary is the reason this turned into what it is. it could have happened on any thread. All you need is irrational people on both sides of the spectrum
By Belinda on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
I will not comment anymore - YOU WIN!!! But I will have my last say . . .
Don’t tell me what happens in socialist countries . . . my husband is from Russia. He lived there for over 45 yrs. Not from the Ukranine or Georgia, but from Moscow. I have a first-hand account. This propaganda is just that! Like sending the Bibles to them. They have had Bibles longer than we have! And not the King James from the 1600s, but the original. The church started in the east. The United States wasn’t even in existence!
I don’t care what small percentage of folks make minimum wage - $5.15 is way too little!! Quote the stats on how many people in this country do not have ANY form of health insurance. THAT should be against the law.
Yes, I am irrational. Six years of this NAZI administration has made me that way!! I was not this way before this evil man decided he was THE decider in chief.
But so as not to offend any of his followers, I will not post anymore.
By Scott on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
Belinda, I share your frustration with our current administration. And I hope that you will continue to comment in the future.
Hillary threads seem to create problems on here. Maybe we can all take a break from it, take a deep breath and come at it again later.
Don’t leave.
By justin on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
I’m for a million dollars an hour minimum wage… that would be great. Everybody would make 8 million dollars a day. Granted, it wouldn’t mean anything cause a Big Mac would cost 2 million bucks.
Belinda, I know Scott said to cool it, and I know I should, but when someone calls me a Nazi, it irks me a little, seeing as I’ve never ever put a jewish person in an oven. Come to think of it, I’ve never put anyone in an oven, and I don’t think the President has either.
If socialism and communism are so great Belinda, why are you in this country? Note, I’m not asking you to leave, because I think that would be a bad idea, but I really would like to know. We’ve got several socialist utopias in the Western Hemisphere that would love have some more income to redistribute. They’ve also got “health care” for everyone there. And surely there’s no poverty in that socialist utopia right?
http://www.therealcuba.com/Poverty.htm
Belinda, I’m not saying you need to become a Republican and a Bush lover (well, as a christian, you should love him, you know, since Christ told us to love our enemies). I’m not even a Republican myself. But I don’t see how supporting a tyrannical state in any way can be called Christian. Christ never forced anyone to be a good person. He let the rich young ruler walk away, there was no chasing him down with Roman guards ready to kill him if he didn’t give away all he had. Why do you think that same force should be applied to people in this country in the name of Christ? I’ll say it again, its easy to be charitable with other people’s money. I have no problem giving away money that I didn’t earn to begin with… I struggle to give things that I “earned” away because its mine. But that’s what we are called to do as Christians. NO WHERE in the bible are we called to be Robin Hood, robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
By Scott on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know why these comments keep getting hung up for moderation but I’m glad they are.
I’ve hesitated approving them because they are opposed to the spirit of this blog.
Justin, Belinda didn’t call you a Nazi. She used some strong words that I don’t agree with but she didn’t attack you. I don’t agree with likening Bush to a nazi.
Let’s stop this discourse now. We can find other places online to be polemical.
Justin, I know you have minimum wage figured out and that is a subject that you are passionate about. There are many of us who disagree. Can we just agree to have differing views and move on?
By Belinda on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
I apologize for calling Bush a Nazi. I didn’t really realize I did that, but if that is the way it comes across, then I apologize. I probably get to that point from the wiretapping and firings, etc., but it is a very strong term and too extreme (and hopefully the way it will stay). Even though I don’t like him, I do have respect for the office of the president and I do ask God’s blessing on him, as well as the leaders of other nations.