...Clinton to raise the village? These Marxist philosophies are sooooooooo archaic & typical of the sixties "groupie" mentality. Why can't parents raise their child? Hillary's anti individualistic mentality seems more geared to a back door power grab of the "masses" by her running for president/village chief. I mean does it take a village to teach a kid to make a pot of coffee, comb his/her hair, tie shoe laces, mow a lawn, bowl, make a bed, read, bathe, brush teeth, say thank you, talk, build a model or watch telivision??? It seems like her "village" mentality is more geared to getting the village into a lock step mentality so the elitist's can "puppet" em for their amusement/use. Why would ANYONE vote for a marxist mentality wannabe puppeteer?
2007-08-02 20:21:03 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I recall that Hillary was on a campaign to make people believe she was a devoted family person when she wrote the socialist version of parenting. When she carpet-bagged to the most liberal state short of CA, to become a senator, her focus groups and polls suggested she appear to be a middle of the roader and hide her extreme left past. Later, the extreme left have been maiming her for supporting the fight against terrorism.
Hillary is in shock; the liberal media is supposed to reign in the attackers; "Hey, you know it was just an act, like my phony marriage", she shrieks. "Hey, it's still me, the born again "Wellsley-Lesbian" Marxist"!
(Note- I'm not saying she is a lesbian, I'm saying she became a supporter of the philosophy, previously brought up in a wealthy conservative home of capitalists).
2007-08-02 21:04:26 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
okay. first of all, I am a Marxist, and Hillary isn't even within shouting distance. Marxism is about understanding that economics causes separation, division, and conflict within society, and for the most part determines quality of life. You're talking about communism, which has never been actually realistically implemented. You are right on with the elitist thing, the elitists are those who keep economic oppression in place--but both parties do that, Republicans a bit more than Dems, but fairly equally. They're all rich.
Secondly, though I'm not a Hillary fan, you do need a "village" to do crazy things like "fund public education." Not to mention the fact that kids learn how to function in society from socialization, i.e. the people that they meet outside of their home. So yeah, it's important.
2007-08-02 21:27:19 · answer #2 · answered by hailtothethief_orwellwasright 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Parents CAN -- however, both historically (over the past 20 years) and statistically (over longer) they DON'T.
Which leaves it to the govt to provide education and health care for the vast majority (90%).
Note that I personally oppose socialist economics, and oppose govt- mandated charity. And the public school system is a disaster unlikely to be fixed for generations.
I do support the idea of everyone contributing to the betterment of the next generation -- but our govt has shown it is not capable of effectively doing that.
2007-08-02 21:14:07 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Greenwich Village maybe~
2007-08-03 01:44:14 · answer #4 · answered by Classic96 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It takes a village to raise the village idiot.
2007-08-02 22:56:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋