She does do ethnic jokes... and slurs:
Posted on 02/26/2006 8:11:20 PM PST by Mia T
ping
Great work again, FReeper Mia T
thanx :)
Seeing that ABC news clip reminds me of what we are up against. Despite a biased media, Hillary's true identity will still come out and Americans will not be deceived.
ping
The explanation for this rant? She's a socialist.
Leftists look at programs like school vouchers and see only one thing: "The stupid people" (i.e. non-liberals) making life choices with their own money.
The leftist goal is to take away the economic power from as many people as they can--through taxation here--and thus that money is no longer the property of the silly individual who earned it, but "community" (i.e. the "people's congress" i.e. the elite Decision Makers's) money. YOU (single) do not get to decide what to do with that money, because you might make a "selfish" decision, one based on self-interest. (Aka self-reliance.) WE (plural) should get to decide what to do with that money, because we are all connected, what you do affects me, and him, and that one over there.
HRC lists several school choices--Catholic, Jewish, secular, White Supremacist, Jihadi--and instead of her "multicultural/everyone gets everything" approach, she makes a JUDGMENT that of course we can all agree with--namely, that some choices are repugnant to us, and we don't want OUR (plural) tax money going to fund THAT; but someone is free to send their kids to those schools on their own dime.
So in the guise of keeping YOUR/OUR (singular/plural) money out of the hands of white racists and jihadists, we can hide under the WE of the state/the collective--if one person in that collective finds that school racist, ZAP, no money for them.
The solution is clear.
If you are an individualist dedicated to individual liberty, you support cutting taxes so the individual has enough money to make his or her own educational choices. Doesn't matter if he sends his kid to a racist school, because it's HIS money, and we don't have to support the school, so we are thus cut out of the controlling structure. He gets to be a racist ass, but that's his choice, we are free to spend our money where we wish, and HE has no say over it.
If you are a socialist, you prevent that individual from having control of his own life choices, because OBVIOUSLY this is a poor life choice. So you tax him, and deny the use of vouchers, so he can't touch that money that was taken from him and put into OUR community funds. Mrs. Clinton and you have done nothing to earn that money, but now you have control over that money.
And with control of one's earnings comes control of one's life.
And that's what HRC wants.
No amount of money, charm school or spin will make a difference bump ;)
She likes bad situations to remain bad situations.
Being a socialist explains why she is anti-voucher, generally. It does not, IMO, fully explain her bizarre rant.
'Well, the way I read Genesis, Cain was marked. Therefore, I believe in white supremacy.
Mia, you understand her better than I. ;) Do you know what she means by that statement?
Question: Why do you suppose she chose those particular bogymen? Do you think they were arbitrary? Or did they serve a purpose?
She was trying to show how socialism will defend against racism, and it was pathetic. She is not a logical thinker at all--she merely latches on to an idea that appeals to her sensibilities and then that's as far as she goes, from that point on she just pleads. There she was trying to make taking money away from black people and limiting their choices look like a good thing, like big sister was looking out for them. A revolting woman who flails around grabbing 60's-70's leftyspeak because she doesn't much like people, she's more comfortable with ideas, yet she hasn't the capacity to think clearly and logically.
Wasn't she speaking to a New York teacher's group? I thought it was indicated that most or all of the audience was black. So she picked the White Supremacy school for obvious reasons; the Jihadi for obvious reasons for a New Yorker; and the Jews, Catholics and secularists to appear "mainstream."
I don't know about you but I sensed she'd have liked to put the Catholic school in with the last couple, skipped the Jewish school, and held up the secularist school at the "good" school.
What's going on here is somewhat clear to me.
First of all I have a liberal aunt/uncle pair who have been in education as well as other liberal causes their entire lives. I can vividly being in their house about 3 years ago or so, and they made this *exact* argument to me i.e. we can't have vouchers because they might be used to send someone to a KKK school or whatever. So this "argument" has clearly been floating around in education circles for a reasonably long period of time and is probably routinely pulled out and dusted off when need be. Missus clinton probably heard this argument and decided to use it making it sound like she had thought it up.
What is more curious to me is her delivery. It is told in the *exact* same format as you might tell an ethnic joke. If you go back an listen, some of the internal cadences resemble an ethnic joke. She's making a policy argument but the rhythm, the cadences, the sonata form is as if she were saying "Catholic, Jew, White Supremacicist and Jihadist walk into a bar".
Usally these jokes are told with 3 examples, the first two for the setup, and the last one for the punchline. In her case she has 2 setup and 2 punchline. Which has its own disconcerting effect as we're not used to 2 punchlines!
But again, this is Yet Another demonstration of her political tone deafness - this is not the cadence of political speech - this is the cadence of someone telling a bad ethnic joke and one in which the audience just wishes they were somewhere's else.
One gets the feeling that she tells a lot of these jokes, tells them poorly, but woe be unto Those Who Will Not Laugh.
You vill hear ze joke and you vill like it, jah?
No. She was speaking to the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp., a group that would be SYMPATHETIC to vouchers. Hence my argument.
One thing to consider in weighing the possibilities: hillary clinton, not socialism, not the Democrat Party, is #1 for hillary clinton.
She does do ethnic jokes... and slurs:
No matter how you look at it, she is still and angry, idle-mouthed boa....she slinks around corners and hisses every chance she gets....
The Hillbilly is looking for 25 interns....one, by the name of Monica, wasn't enough for him, so now he is looking for 25....
If the Missus Boa was any kind of woman, she would be home with her other half, be it man or woman, whatever her flavor is at the time, and he wouldn't have to look for 25 interns....
Perhaps I gave far too much credit to Rove's instinct, particularly when saying of clinton: “She has seen what the job requires,” he said. “And she has been through six gubernatorial campaigns, two presidential campaigns, and then two senatorial campaigns in a big, industrial state. So she will be a formidable campaigner. She’ll be sure-footed.”
If her ridiculous rant was any indication of her "extensive campaign experience and sure footedness", (and I pray it continues) she can kiss the nomination goodbye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.