No it won't. Proving it will. :)
2007-09-22 12:04:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
First, i'm professional-Obama. i don't think of that McCain would properly be characterised particularly as "extra of an identical." If something, i stumble on that Hillary Clinton is the main conservative of the applicants available. it particularly is been generally noted that she assumed the function of a conflict hawk back for the time of as "difficult" and arranged for the function of "commander-in-chief." together with her 4-365 days help of the conflict, Bush's financial ruin invoice, and backing from the wellness care cartels, is she any different than vote casting for George Bush? for this reason i might say it may't be boiled right down to an common generalization that each and every physique Democrats or Republicans are the standard component. McCain has continuously saved one foot on the different fringe of the floor, or maybe together with his perspectives on Iraq, has plenty to furnish. whilst i don't agree completely together with his take on the Iraqi occupation, he's nice in saying that through picking to "decrease and run" there'll be problems. Getting out isn't everywhere close to so basic as entering into, and a speedy go out might turn it into terrorist paradise (which Bush basically imagined it replaced into interior the 1st place). people who vote in accordance to hues or animal mascots, somewhat than paying interest to the applicants particularly stance, do an excellent disservice. Like I stated, what makes Clinton different than Bush? What makes McCain an identical? what's to assert that Obama is inevitably a better selection than the two? that may not an common one to respond to. human beings certainly dropped the ball with Bush's 2nd term, yet he can basically run 2 situations and now it will be somebody else in that seat.
2016-10-19 11:09:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by courts 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Many Americans are ready for some "socialism", starting with the 47 million who don't have health insurance. Or those who have lost pensions they worked for for years because the corporation figured out a way to do them out of their pensions.
Latest poll 70% of Americans want rid of the GOP, so I suppose they will take all the "socialism" they can get.
Those who don't want the benefits should decline to accept them. Same goes for being anti-choice--don't have an abortion.
I often wonder how many of the screaming neo cons posting here are so financially secure they will donate their SS to the religious establishment of their choice
No I do not think the American people will be fooled again!
2007-09-22 12:17:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
It is the candidates that are spouting the socialist agenda and bidding with tax dollars for votes. Telling the truth is not a bad thing no matter how bad Libs would like it to be.
2007-09-22 12:11:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Locutus1of1 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Democrats in the left wing of the left wing liberal loony party are socialists. Hillary Clinton has the most advanced case. She is promoting socialized medicine and has yet to win even one primary.
There is no attempted fooling involved. If we have voters willing to vote for socialists, we will have to live with it. But I am not going to stop getting the truth out. Democrats are socialists.
2007-09-22 12:06:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
I realize your just trolling but I'll tell you why I think
Hillary the front runner is a socialist and or fascist
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individuals capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." [Adolph Hitler, 1933]
The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)]
Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]
See the common thread in these statements?
And furthermore her political philosophy expressed in that statement too closely resembles this one;
Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. [Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]
That's only a few examples of comparisons to just one of her statements with those of historical fascist and communist figures with very similar view points. I could give you many more but I doubt you even read these. No sense beating a dead horse.
2007-09-22 12:13:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
I don't think it will fool our oldest and most reliable voting block, whose parents elected, and continued to re-elect FDR, arguably the most "Socialist" of our past presidents, after they had seen enough of the "Hoovervilles."
2007-09-22 17:30:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by James 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think people will look at what Bush has done... and say... "what ever you want to call the Dems, it's got to be better than this"...
Most people remember Clinton and have enough sense to know that the Dems aren't crazy communists...
you can call a chair a cactus, but it's still a better place to sit than on the floor
2007-09-22 12:55:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
It will probably work. Many Americans were fooled into voting against Al Gore because the media told them he was boring!
This is a nation of idiots. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.
2007-09-22 12:01:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
3⤋
Democrats have been fooling the American public for years,,, duhhh,,, what do you think 'progressive' means??? The more they have to tell about their policies, it's easy to see through them,, lol.
2007-09-22 12:38:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Americans are so easily fooled. I suppose they could be. Good Luck ! :)
2007-09-22 12:07:09
·
answer #11
·
answered by tysavage2001 6
·
0⤊
1⤋