Clinton at the Convention

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Posted by J. J. Jackson @ 9:49 AM

I watched it. Yep. Sure did. So what did Bill Clinton say?

Well, it took Old Billy all of 2 minutes to say that they would make sure all the votes would be counted in 2004 and dredge up the 2000 Florida fiasco...HEY BILLY HOW MANY RECOUNTS DID AL GORE WIN THAT DID NOT REWRITE THE RULES FOR COUNTING?!?!?!?!?!

Answer = 0

Then he shifted gears and went on about how the "Republicans" want to concentrate power in the hands of the few...and that "Democrats" don't...

Boy that is some GOOD stuff that Billy is smoking.

I can't believe that he said that with a straight face and then contradicted himself in the next breath saying that "Republicans" don't want have government providing for the people such things as Social Security and Socialized Medicine.

Which one is it BILLY? Do "Republicans" want to concentrate power or do they want to get government out of people's lives?

Only a room full of "Democrats" would applaud this kind on contradictory double speak.

Then he played the "guilty rich guy" routine where he is pretending to be outraged about getting a tax cut while saying that everyone else was paying for it.

But I notice that he stopped short of saying that he donated the money that he got back to the government...hmmmm...Bill pass the joint...maybe then we'll agree with you.

And just for good measure Slick Willy dropped a BOMBSHELL....


OMG did you know that Kerry was in Vietnam? I can't believe that we haven't heard of this before now!

So what did Bill Clinton really say. He said the same old same old. That Democrats want to make you a subject of the state when you are poor and when you are old and have other people pay for it. He accused the Republicans of doing exactly what Democrats want to do and he expects you and I to swallow it hook line and sinker.

And just to put the icing on the cake, to a person on the floor of the convention they praised the speech as being pretty much "centrist" and "non-partisan". You could see the heads nodding in agreement as he spoke and you could feel the wheels of the modern communist movement churning forward.

In truth, nothing Clinton said was "centrist". He talked about balancing the budget which would require raising taxes or cutting social spending and he already said the Democrats wanted to keep the social spending so that means raising taxes. He said that the Democrats NOW want a strong military after years of Clinton cuts. And he boasted that when he left office people were better and the economy was better off than when he went in. Gee Clinton...forget about the recession that started in the last quarter of your Presidency much?

I suppose to socialists and communists the speech may have indeed sounded "centrist" because it didn't call for the outright nationalization of industry in America. But as I always say, a "centrist" is just someone that believes a little bit of socialism, limited freedom, and big government is ok...Socialist-lites.

So keep watching. This is going to be another defining moment for the left wing in this country.

Leave a comment if you like! *Note if you are a left wing, tin hat wearing, pro-Marxist loon that likes to post "anonymously" you will be treated like the kook you are!
your comment that Clinton would have the elderly and impoverished become "subjects of the state" inspires two questions. First of all, will we ever really avoid being "subjects" of one kind or another? In other words, in a globalized society, aren't we going to have to join together in some form or another (a democratic republic, for instance) in order to establish some sort of order domestically and exert our influence abroad? We'll always be Americans - it's simply a question of what we want that to mean. Which brings me to my second question - what would you do with the elderly and the impoverished? Permit them to waste away in some corner of our nation? Government assistance to these groups prevents costly emergency room visits, dangerous criminal behavior, and cycles of poverty that trap children generation after generation. They are a prudent investment in a strong society, not a strong state. Most of all, knowing that we are committed to ensuring that the least among us are not forgotten, are not crudely left to die alone and starving, seems to be the greatest benefit of an institutionalized system of assisting these people. What Clinton expressed was that there are moral implications to our politics, and the occassional donation is nothing more than a bandaid. We need systematic solutions to allow society to fulfill its potential, not trite complaints about the onset of communism in this country.
I love the socialist mindset.

Your first point about really always being some kind of subject shows that you have probably never really read the founding documents of this country. I direct your attention to the Declaration of Independence. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

As you can see, under such a system the people are certainly NOT a subject of any kind. Your first point is a nice little attempt to justify socialism but none the less completely fallacious.

As to your second question about what to do with the impoverished and the elderly gee, hmmmm. You apparently want to continue a socialized government method for this where money is collected, circulated in a bureaucracy, bureaucrats paid out of that money, and then what is left returned to those that need it. Here is a better idea.

The Church.
Private Charity.
Personal Responsibility.

Now if you are a social reject who doesn't believe in God or have any family and is too lazy to go to the local charity to get help or get off your lazy behind then you would wither and die just like all cancers upon society.

Time to face facts there boyo:

"We need systematic solutions to allow society to fulfill its potential, not trite complaints about the onset of communism in this country."

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck...or in this case a communist. Just because you are too blind to see the horror that such philosophies have endured upon the people they rule over the years is not a reason to dismiss communism as communism.

Oh yes, and please at least sign your name to your rants...that is unless you are too scared to have yourself associated with them.

Look at the history of government when you use government to spend money on people. We have been fighting the "war on poverty" for how many years and thrown how many billions of dollars at it? And what do we have? We have an amount of poverty equal to the amount of money we have thrown at it.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Support the Troops T-shirts & Apparel American Eagle
$1.00 from each purchase is donated to the Unmet Needs Program
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005

Support Our Troops