Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The Clintons are the most corrupt politicians there is, and you want her to win.You dissapoint me Lest.
The GOP are the most corrupt politicians there are, provable with their track record of holding the US economy hostage and treason-level sabotage of American foreign policy, and you want one of them to win.
You disappoint me Time. Oh wait, this is to be expected. You thought Romney was a good choice lol.
Whether or not Hitler and Hillary said the same thing isn't really that important, unless we're talking about both of them saying something unequivocally evil like "kill all Jews."
Saying that society's needs should be prioritized over individual needs is a statement that can have multiple possible implications, ranging from sensible and benign (it's more or less accepted, for instance, by all but the most extreme libertarians, that if a person is in a ward full of newborn babies that person shouldn't be allowed to smoke, because the needs of all those babies to breathe clean air outweigh the needs of one man to get his nicotine fix) to totalitarian (you must surrender all property for the good of the state). However the words attributed to Clinton aren't contextualized enough to show what end of the spectrum she's coming from, making it a pointless comparison.
LOL. Maybe it's ok to you but saying something like what Hillary supposedly said is a very anti-American statement. Only people who share her socialistic views would say that "it's not that important". Considering your views on things like gun ownership rights it's not that difficult to understand why it doesn't bother you but to someone who thinks individual rights are an important part of being an American it's highly offensive. Perhaps not "evil" but offensive, nonetheless.
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Maybe it's ok to you but saying something like what Hillary supposedly said is a very anti-American statement. Only people who share her socialistic views would say that "it's not that important". Considering your views on things like gun ownership rights it's not that difficult to understand why it doesn't bother you but to someone who thinks individual rights are an important part of being an American it's highly offensive.
That's just a foolish idealistic generalization. Individual rights are fine if nobody's getting hurt, but when these "rights" are able to serve as excuses for people to abuse, harm, promote ignorance of, discriminate against, exploit, and/or overall impede on the natural human rights of people, they need to be rectified. If you think people should endure harm and abuse just to uphold the ideal of individual rights, I just consider you selfish and myopically close-minded.
And as OV said, you're taking Hilary's quote out of context just so it can fit your BS narrative. Here's another quote supporting society over the individual.
"He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." - Aristotle
Based on your BS logic, i guess that means one of history's greatest philosophers is like Hitler as well. LOL the lows you'll stoop to to lowball a candidate even though she's the best qualified there is right now.
It's like you want the GOP to destroy America and are actively sabotaging America with foolish ignorance so it can happen. Why do you hate America so much, Star?
Originally posted by Lestov16
The GOP are the most corrupt politicians there are, provable with their track record of holding the US economy hostage and treason-level sabotage of American foreign policy, and you want one of them to win.You disappoint me Time. Oh wait, this is to be expected. You thought Romney was a good choice lol.
Obama founded his Obama care on Romney care, certainly you can't think bad of Romney. 😆
Wait till this book about the Clintons comes out, I hope you read it.
Its called "Clinton Cash"
I understand your sentiment. My "aunt" (family friend) had a grandson who went on welfare, and she instantly called him out for being lazy, which admittedly he was. But 47%? I understand there are those who abuse the system, and there are definitely welfare reforms that could and should take place to weed out the lazy from those who actually need it, but still, almost half of America falls under this category? I'm calling BS.
Also, only about 35% of America is on welfare, so how does that become 47%?
Its very hard to do because the people who make the promises for those welfare checks bank on those votes to keep them elected. Remember that lady after Obama was elected was screaming "I don't have to worry about my mortgage anymore, or putting gas in my car, Obama is gonna pay my bills." Those are the people that fck it up for everyone.
Its a vicious circle.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its very hard to do because the people who make the promises for those welfare checks bank on those votes to keep them elected. Remember that lady after Obama was elected was screaming "I don't have to worry about my mortgage anymore, or putting gas in my car, Obama is gonna pay my bills." Those are the people that fck it up for everyone.Its a vicious circle.
I agree, but the way the GOP tried to handle the situation was horribly and irredeemably misguided and harmful to America. Sorry, but I can not in good conscience vote for a member of that party. IMO, it is easier for me to hope that Hillary will make welfare reforms than hope the GOP will stop their insane behavior.
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Maybe it's ok to you but saying something like what Hillary supposedly said is a very anti-American statement. Only people who share her socialistic views would say that "it's not that important". Considering your views on things like gun ownership rights it's not that difficult to understand why it doesn't bother you but to someone who thinks individual rights are an important part of being an American it's highly offensive. Perhaps not "evil" but offensive, nonetheless.
My view on gun rights is that guns are too dangerous to be an unqualified right to all people. As I've said many times, I grew up in an area where everyone is packing, and I saw plenty of people do stupid shit with guns. I'm not against gun rights, but I think it's absolutely retarded (and you won't see me use that word often, because I only use it when I think something lacks even basic sense) that the right to bear arms should be put on level with the right to free speech. Gun ownership should be a privilege, something only earned when a person demonstrates they're mentally and emotionally mature enough to own one and use it and keep it responsibly.
My view on gun rights is that guns are too dangerous to be an unqualified right to all people. As I've said many times, I grew up in an area where everyone is packing, and I saw plenty of people do stupid shit with guns. I'm not against gun rights, but I think it's absolutely retarded (and you won't see me use that word often, because I only use it when I think something lacks even basic sense) that the right to bear arms should be put on level with the right to free speech.
Gun ownership should be a privilege, something only earned when a person demonstrates they're mentally and emotionally mature enough to own one and use it and keep it responsibly. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree, how many incidents do we see over a parking spot that someone thought they were going to get at the mall only to see someone take it at the last minute? If a person was a CCW and a hot head and arrogant to somehow think the sky is falling, they may decide to shoot someone. It has happened. I agree there are more quals needed to gauge emotional maturity. The current can you hit a target from 50 feet and no priors and other disqualifications, seems to not be enough a full range assessment as to whom should be owning a gun.
Hilary has never been really in a position to go full blown socialist because she's never been in the oval office, but she has socialist vies in regards to the general population. However if we look at track records of Obama we should have know. As for Hilary, she just thinks she is above the law and doesn't have to do anything legally, and she breaks the law any time she can, then says "Opps, I didn't know it was against the law, I did it for connivence!"
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Hilary has never been really in a position to go full blown socialist because she's never been in the oval office, but she has socialist vies in regards to the general population. However if we look at track records of Obama we should have know. As for Hilary, she just thinks she is above the law and doesn't have to do anything legally, and she breaks the law any time she can, then says "Opps, I didn't know it was against the law, I did it for connivence!"
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think the fact she's so self serving is an argument against her being a socialist at heart. She's 100% capitalist.
No that the hypocrisy of politicians and the elite.
That is why they have a different medical insurance, different social security. They have there own things but say they do the best for us. So really what it is, is crap and lies. The rich and powerful will never give up there money or power, they will just take more from everyone else to line there pockets.