Posted on 08/01/2007 11:30:59 AM PDT by AndrewWalden
I know. I was referring to the clumsy Rather-gate faux-memo
That was Hillary’s writing about Alinsky, not mine.
“Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical’. his are the words used in schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them and recognizes the necessity of changing the present structure of our lives in order to realize them.” - Hillary Rodham in her thesis.
Her words, not mine.
I thought your post was excellent.
I might add that I think there is a third possibility. It kind of dovetails with your "focus group" explanation, but it is really more of an explanation of why Hillary never seems "real." I believe it is possible to have NO intellectual or moral aspirations other than simply seeking power. In other words, I am not sure there is a "real Hillary"(your phrase) there anymore. In the beginning, there may be a small lump of desiring to redress social inequalities, or alleviate poverty, or attack institutionalized racism, etc, but the thing that overpowers men and women in politics is the raw unslaked lust for power. In the end, it becomes the goal itself, not the mean to attain the original goal (however noble or naive those goals may have been). CS Lewis's illustration of a victrola which just emptily spins out noise while no one is at the crank anymore is a good one. The platitudes are still there (maybe, if you ask for them), but what is pushing many people is simply the thirst for power. Martin Luther said that there were three great temptations to men in life. When they are young, they crave sex. When they are middle aged, they want money. But when they are mature, they lust for power. Hillary may have an estrogen tinge to this, but I believe it fits her just as well as most of the rest of the slime in DC.
It is also why FReepers who believe in the equation that "republican = good" and "democrats = bad" are naive and actually hurtful to the cause they profess. The key to this thing is NOT to get the right people in power to save the republic. Those people do not exist. The key is to devolve power by an insistence at the grass roots level of saying "no" to the siren lure of DC, whether it be to "protect us" from the visions of a caliphate or to take care of us or whatever else. I don't see that happening, if the general tone of posts on Free Republic is any indication.
Yeh, sure was a lucky break that a photographer was around to show us they were so in love.
bump
Copyright is still held by the author.
Access tends to be liberal as theses are supposedly about the dissemmination of knowledge etc.
In this case . . . I still vote with keeping it accessible on the net. The stakes are high enough . . . and . . . her own values . . . were she on our side, she’d do it in a flash.
Not entirely comfortable with that . . . but, hey, I’m human, too and things are complex.
Part of me would have preferred to have had her sued say under some sort of freedom of information type argument . . . the thesis was partly sponsored by public monies. There’s no adequate rationale for keeping it secret.
But I’m a bit more concerned that now that it’s out—that it be used to maximum benefit. And, that the timing be right.
I suspect her camp got it out now rather than have it crop up in OCT 2008. Disinterest will have set in by then.
I’m still waiting for one of her cohorts to squeal on her about the death of Vince Foster, the stolen FBI documents, and the missing Rose law firm documents.
Can they be silent forever?
As silent as the grave...
= = =
INDEED.
But we can pray that idiot team members from a trusted role will turn sane and come to the LIGHT SIDE.
I downloaded the thesis but self ping the thread to follow up on comments
Although HRC was conveniently out of town at the time of the crime, events following the crime show conclusively that she wasn’t surprised at what had happened and she went into immediate cover-up mode. In other words, she was a central figure in a murder conspiracy.
= = =
Not a shred of doubt in my mind.
Ditto - this needs to be downloaded and dispersed as widely as possible. I would assume that the thugs don't want it getting out.
In spite of my belief in property rights, I firmly believe that the voters’ right to know is a higher right in this case.
= = =
INDEED. Especially when it comes to having a globalist traitor in the WHITE HOUSE AGAIN.
Yes, and what better time to release than on the coattails of a major bridge collapse - when the media will pay little attention. She may be dumber than a fencepost, but she's schrewd (or has good handlers).
The sore on her lip is also gone. Didn’t we also see that same little “blemish” in that now famous photo of her and Bubba as a young “handsome” couple?
Bump.
First, Hillary wrote this when she was a woman, not a teeny-bopper.
Secondly, her radical/socialistic ideology was already set.....perhaps not as refined as it is today, and certainly not as well-cloaked.
I've been doing some extensive reading of the development of the radical/socialist movement in this country in the late 1800's and early 1900's, particularly in the feminists/suffragettes arenas. Feminists and suffragettes were not necessarily in the same camp. The feminists had their own agenda (socialism, communal efforts to raise children and thereby improve mankind rather than individual efforts, etc.)
No doubt Hillary had studied all this history and her socialistic ideology probably was continually being shaped by teachers, professors, mentors, campus speakers and/or radical student peers.
In short, she was NOT an ideological virgin when she composed her thesis.
Her idea of "it takes a village" is straight out of feminist socialistic philosopy and the books and other writings of Hillary's intellectual predecessors.
Beware of Ms. Clinton......she is truly a wolf in sheepskin's clothing.
Leni
Have not been able to save it nor to “print it to file.”
It times out repeatedly.
Any solutions?
Any way to pry it out of pdf?
Otherwise, you forget the rules of the game when it comes to politics and living a PUBLIC life- ANYTHING IS FAIR GAME AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. If that b**ch wants to run for President, fine by me, but I want to know every molecule of her nasty self before I decide whether or not Im going to let her at the reins of this country. This is something she not only should be prepared to accept for herself, but has willfully played herself...it was called "scorched earth policy" back in the day...and you can bet your sweet bippy she will employ it once she is made a candidate. So all prissy bets about "copyright" are OFF...Theres no violation here at all, except for the Hildebeast's preferred method of not letting some of her more rancid past catch up with her. She just THOUGHT she was rid of Barbara Olsen on September 11, 2001. We havent forgotten.
Sorry — maybe I need new reading glasses!
I agree 100%.
Sopranos in the White House for 8 years.
You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common:
they don't alter their views to fit the facts,
they alter the facts to fit the views,
which can be uncomfortable,
if you happen to be one of the facts
that needs altering.
Freegards
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.