Posted on 09/06/2012 4:15:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
........wait a minute, Professor Warren. Who do you think owns corporations? Who do you think have their retirement funds invested with corporations? Who do you think benefits if corporations do well?........
This idea that corporations are somehow non-human is just stupid. Isn't she a Professor at Harvard Law School? What's going on there?
Plus, Ms. Warren had the strange habit of pressing her tongue against her lips and cheeks as if she were mimicking a sex act. That was unnerving.
But it was a good introduction for Bill Clinton. This cracker snake oil salesman....immediately began to lecture the Republicans about how immoral they are. Yes!!!! This man, who had a college intern give him oral sex in the Oval Office while he was on the phone with a Congressional Committee Chair, who inserted.....
It is art.
This man, credibly accused of something very like sexual assault, is cheered to the rafters by the women at the DNC. It is fantastic. This is not grist for the political analyst. It is grist for the psychoanalyst.
...Mr. Clinton basically said, "Those vicious scumbag lying, heartless vampire, murdering Republicans… we try to be kind to them and love them and they still are the same lying murdering thieving scumbags they always were. See how mightily nice we are to these bastards and still they don't want to work with us."
.....I could not help notice how utterly different the people at the DNC looked from the ones at the RNC. One group was blond, happy looking, contented looking. The others looked as if they could not wait for the tumbrels, an entire convention of Mesdames Defarge.
There are different tribes in America. Some are happy. Some are furious. I want the ones who are happy to run things.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
tumbrel: An open cart that tilted backward to empty out its load, in particular one used to convey condemned prisoners to the guillotine during the French Revolution.
Ben Stein nails another one. These people are demented.
His point about how different the two conventions looked was also well-taken. They did look different. I didn't see any tumbrels, and I didn't see a Madame Defarge until Nancy Pelosi came out -- that woman wants to guillotine Bill Ayers's 25,000,000 American lottery winners.
I did notice more than a few vacuous stares, but no droolers.
It drives me crazy that the Clinton narrative has been allowed to be rewritten over the past years. He was hard left and got slapped in the face by the voters after two years, just like Obama. From there, he became easily the most vicious partisan in modern political history. To his credit, he ultimately signed on to the right leaning agenda of the House. Alternatively, he battled it in pure nastiness, and then claimed the agenda as his own two seconds after caving.
It also drives me crazy that our side has let the prosperity during most of the Bush term get re-written as hard times. We were at full unemployment and many years of growth. There was no way we would see the same growth levels of the late 1990s. Bush came in with an economy that was dinged up a little but healthy. He kept it going through good taxation policy and let free enterprise prosper. I hardly know a person who was out of work even for a little but during those years (unlike 1999-2001 when many tech people we laid off multiple times as the dot com bubble burst). Things weren’t perfect, and Bush definitely did some things wrong, but we were in a good spot for a sustained period of time. If someone was full employed for 7.8 years and then lost a job in fall 2008, the left is making that out as a failure of all 8 years. As opposed to today, where people are permanently unemployed or underemployed, in the Bush years, few were in that situation.
Could Ms “running-with-democrats” Liz’s tongue-thrusting be a symptom of a medication she is on?
Remember she owes her job at Harvard to her minority status (diversity hires with high cheek bones)
She is a good capitalist even if she talks the communist party talk...she made her money off the backs of the poor and dispossessed by buying and flipping foreclosures.
Simple: He's a Chicago guy, and he wants to wake up tomorrow morning.
Clinton is a DISGRACED, IMPEACHED Pres. who was accused of RAPE and SEXUAL HARRASSMENT and he has CHEATED on his “Saintly” wife since they met!! And the Leftist ugly women in the DNC LOVE HIM!!
Well, actually, that was a false prosperity fed with funny money by the Fed gargoyles, Alan Greenspan and "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke. I think it's a fair ding -- the manufacturing base, the engine of our real prosperity, continued to go away during the Bush years with no attempt on his or congressional Republicans' (or Democrats') part to slow or arrest the financial trend toward disinvestment and cheesy, leveraged ripoff deals.
The prosperity, such as it was, of 2000-2008 was a sort of afterglow of the 80's and 90's bull -- the Reagan bull -- and the buzzards were already circling by 2000, the markets descending for a year before Shrub was sworn in.
If you want a bad guy for all this, look at the guys who went crazy bundling bad debt and default swaps. That's what wrecked everybody. Jamie Dimon, AIG, the guys at Bank of America and Citigroup and Merrill Lynch. (Who's back, btw, with their classically absurd "mighty steer" commercials. Yeah, I want market advice from a company that ruptured itself gorging on bad debt and derivatives.)
You’re right.
It was a single Democrat vote from Oklahoma that stopped Clinton’s BTU tax...
“If you want a bad guy for all this, look at the guys who went crazy bundling bad debt and default swaps.’
As I understand it, this was mandated by Dim congressional action, even back in the Clinton years, and brought to full fruition by Barney Frank, as a means to give an equal opportunity for all to own homes, even the unqualified.
Synopsis of his speech: "Folks, we really need to double down on stupid."
And then Stupid joined him on stage.
Ebert reviews what he wants to.
Indeed, the Clinton-Lewinsky defense—accord which the feminists signed onto, can be regarded as feminism's Nazi-Soviet Pact. Their calculation was both simple and crude: If Clinton was removed, Hillary would go too. But she was their link to patronage and power, and they couldn't imagine losing that. Their kind was finally in control of the White House, and the conservative enemies of their beautiful future were not.
.....In the 1930s, Nazis used "The Third Way" to characterize their own brand of national socialism as a equidistant between the "internationalist" socialism of the Soviet Union and the capitalism of the West. Trotskyists used "The Third Way" as a term to distinguish their own Marxism from Stalinism and capitalism. In the 1960s, New Leftists used "The Third Way" to define their politics as an independent socialism between the Soviet gulag and America's democracy.
But as the history of Nazism, Trotskyism and the New Left have shown, there is no "Third Way." There is the capitalist, democratic way based on private property and individual rights—a way that leads to liberty and universal opportunity. And there is the socialist way of group identities, group rights, a relentless expansion of the political state, restricted liberty and diminished opportunity. The Third Way is not a path to the future. It is just the suspension between these two destinations. It is a bad faith attempt on the part of people who are incapable of giving up their socialist schemes to escape the taint of their discredited past.
Is there a practical difference in the modus operandi of Clinton narcissism and Clinton messianism? I think there is, and it is the difference between "triangulation"—a cynical compromise to hang onto power until the next election cycle, and "The Third Way"—a cynical deception to ensure the continuance of Us, until we acquire enough power to transform everyone else. It is the difference between the politics of getting what you can, and the politics of changing the world.
The idealistic missionaries in this true tale bite their tongues and betray their principles, rather than betray him. They do so because in Bill Clinton they see a necessary vehicle of their noble ambition and uplifting dreams. He, too, cares about social justice, about poor people and blacks (or so he makes them believe). They will serve him and lie for him and destroy for him, because he is the vessel of their hope.
Because Bill Clinton "cares," he is the vital connection to the power they need to accomplish the redemption. Because the keys to the state are within Clinton's grasp, he becomes in their eyes the only prospect for advancing the progressive cause. Therefore, they will sacrifice anything and everything—principle, friends, country—to make him succeed.
But Bill Clinton is not like those who worship him, corrupting himself and others for a higher cause. Unlike them, he betrays principles because he has none. He will even betray his country, but without the slightest need to betray it for something else—for an idea, a party, or a cause. He is a narcissist who sacrifices principle for power because his vision is so filled with himself that he cannot tell the difference.
But the idealists who serve him—the Stephanopoulos's, the Ickes's, the feminists, the progressives and Hillary Clinton—can tell the difference. Their cynicism flows from the very perception they have of right and wrong. They do it for higher ends. They do it for the progressive faith. They do it because they see themselves as having the power to redeem the world from evil. It is that terrifyingly exalted ambition that fuels their spiritual arrogance and justifies their sordid and, if necessary, criminal means.
And that is why they hate conservatives. They hate you because you are killers of their dream. Because you are defenders of a Constitution that thwarts their cause. They hate you because your "reactionary" commitment to individual rights, to a single standard and to a neutral and limited state obstructs their progressive designs. They hate you because you are believers in property and its rights as the cornerstones of prosperity and human freedom; because you do not see the market economy as a mere instrument for acquiring personal wealth and political war chests, to be overcome in the end by bureaucratic schemes."................. Source June 2000
AMEN!
The vast overhang is in the default swaps, which are valued in the scores, maybe hundreds, of trillions of dollars.
“Clinton is a DISGRACED, IMPEACHED Pres. who was accused of RAPE and SEXUAL HARRASSMENT and he has CHEATED on his “Saintly” wife since they met!! And the Leftist ugly women in the DNC LOVE HIM!!”
One has to assume that women in the democratic party are so used to being abused that they can’t see the irony when it slaps them in the face. It is the DEMOCRATS who constantly wage war on them and innocent babies.
Just remember folks, while the Obamabot media is fawning all over Bill Clinton and his speech last night to the DNC, the Clinton endorsement of many Democrat candidates in the past has been a kiss of political death!!!
Indonesia's Bung Sukarno used that same slogan, with that same exact meaning, in the late 50's and early 60's, to describe the policy of Sukarno's regime, even as he allowed himself to be cultivated like a cabbage-patch by the Soviets; and a large Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, grew up all around him, using him as a Trojan horse just the way the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party had used Mossadegh, and Chilean MNR later used Salvador Allende and the Egyptian Communists and the KGB used Gamal Abdul Nasser and Anwar Sadat. While cultivating Sadat, the KGB groomed Sadat's chief of intelligence, Ali Sabry (KGB codename "Asad", "Lion") to replace him.
When Sukarno fell, the Army, briefed by the CIA, moved on the Indonesian PKI and destroyed it, root and branch, killing over 800,000 cadre. These were events for which Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (later Sutoro) and her children were present in Jakarta, if I've read the timeline correctly.
Which is where we rejoin our previously scheduled program.
-——The Democratic Party want a French democracy——
No, The Democrat party wants the French Terror. The tumbrels are symbolic of change wrought by killing the upper class. The Democrats crave death.
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times........ A tale of two Cities
Indeed! (you’re right to make sure that meaning is clear)
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.