Clinton pollster says 25% of republican women are twats

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 18, 2007, 11:51 am

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared ... llste.html

Mark Penn, the pollster and senior strategist of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, predicted Thursday that nearly a quarter of Republican women would defect from the GOP if the New York senator is the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

At a breakfast with political reporters, Penn said his internal polling shows Clinton would win over some 24 percent of Republican women in the 2008 general election because of the “emotional” appeal of electing the country’s first woman president.

Penn said the trend is as evident in the South, a region Democratic presidential candidates have had trouble winning in recent elections, as in all other regions of the country.

Penn said the trend indicates that Clinton would be a stronger Democratic presidential candidate in the South than either Al Gore was in 2000 or John Kerry was in 2004.

Ok so he didn't exactly call them twats... but what do you consider someone who will vote for someone just because they're female?... I'm not a big Rudy fan, but he's right when he says she has no experience. People of all genders should be afraid of Clinton and very skeptical of her past and her motives.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 18, 2007, 12:07 pm

Hilary Clinton is pure evil.

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the
few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something
has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up
a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milos evic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was m ade by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » October 18, 2007, 12:10 pm

not even a little bit surprising. no less infuriating, but not surprising.

Emotional appeal. WTF? It's shit like this that is the cause of people not taking women seriously.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 18, 2007, 12:18 pm

Oh Jesus Funk, we can play the quote game all you want. Anything taken out of context can be horribly misconstrued. For instance,

"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

Uhh, no shit? It's called regulation. She's referring to the oil industry.

"I certainly think the free-market has failed."

In regards to what? What has the free-market failed us on? She's talking about a specific issue here. Perhaps health care, with 30-40 million Americans uncovered? That sounds like a failure in a system to me. If you claim that the free market system is perfect, then we'll know you're full of shit. Sometimes, a free-market system can fail in certain regards.

"We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up
a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

It's fucking called compromise. I invite you to do some research into the original Constitutional Conventions and see what had to be done in order to ensure this nation actually became one.

Jesus, man, no one likes Hilary. But to play this stupid fucking game where you take things horribly out of context? It's childish, pointless, and no one takes it seriously. If you're going to talk about Hilary Clinton, bring up specific issues. Don't take things horribly out of context and expect us to truly listen.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 18, 2007, 12:24 pm

Kaldaur wrote:Jesus, man, no one likes Hilary. But to play this stupid fucking game where you take things horribly out of context? It's childish, pointless, and no one takes it seriously. If you're going to talk about Hilary Clinton, bring up specific issues. Don't take things horribly out of context and expect us to truly listen.

Kind of like that Mission Accomplished banner, yes?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 18, 2007, 12:26 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Kaldaur wrote:Jesus, man, no one likes Hilary. But to play this stupid fucking game where you take things horribly out of context? It's childish, pointless, and no one takes it seriously. If you're going to talk about Hilary Clinton, bring up specific issues. Don't take things horribly out of context and expect us to truly listen.
Kind of like that Mission Accomplished banner, yes?

I agree with both of you.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 18, 2007, 12:34 pm

Kaldaur wrote:Oh Jesus Funk, we can play the quote game all you want. Anything taken out of context can be horribly misconstrued. For instance,

"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

Uhh, no shit? It's called regulation. She's referring to the oil industry.

"I certainly think the free-market has failed."

In regards to what? What has the free-market failed us on? She's talking about a specific issue here. Perhaps health care, with 30-40 million Americans uncovered? That sounds like a failure in a system to me. If you claim that the free market system is perfect, then we'll know you're full of shit. Sometimes, a free-market system can fail in certain regards.

"We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up
a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

It's fucking called compromise. I invite you to do some research into the original Constitutional Conventions and see what had to be done in order to ensure this nation actually became one.

Jesus, man, no one likes Hilary. But to play this stupid fucking game where you take things horribly out of context? It's childish, pointless, and no one takes it seriously. If you're going to talk about Hilary Clinton, bring up specific issues. Don't take things horribly out of context and expect us to truly listen.

I really don't need to get specific, and I threw this in just for fun cause someone at work sent it to me in an email 5 minutes before fash posted this topic. She represents all that is evil and wrong and I hope no one is retarded enough to vote for her for any reason, especially just because she is a woman. That is the worst mistake of all, because that is just a disguise, or a costume if you will - to hide the red skin, horns, and tail that lie beneath.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 18, 2007, 12:38 pm

I'm not a big Rudy fan, but he's right when he says she has no experience.

What a fucking joke. Rudy has no experience. He was a fucking MAYOR. What kind of experience does he have building national consensus, or, god forbid, dealing with foreign policy? ZERO.

Are you really surprised that some women would vote for Hillary because she's a woman? Plenty of people vote for candidates for plenty of stupid fucking reasons. Leonaerd, the statement that people don't take women seriously because of this sort of shit may be true, but it's ludicrous, and I certainly hope that you don't feel that way. If the roles of the genders were reversed, some men would absolutely behave the same way. And, even without a gender reversal, some men will absolutely vote against Hillary because she is a woman, whether they will admit it or not. Women do NOT have a monopoly on gender bias! If we are going to disrespect women on this basis then men deserve no more respect.

I'm a Hillary fan. I don't understand why people find her 'evil' or someone to be 'afraid' of. I have yet to hear a good explanation of what is so bad about her. The only criticism that people seem to come up with, when pressed, is that she's a political animal. Which is true, and is a valid complaint, but is hardly a criticism that applies with more force to Clinton than to any other politician in the field.

Funk, I don't know if you'd be willing, but I'd be curious to hear why you think she represents 'all that is evil and wrong.'

Fash, I think your phrasing of the topic heading is unfair. Even overlooking your use of the word 'twat,' which the pollster certainly did not use, the phrasing of the subject makes it sound like the pollster is insulting some group of people when he's just trying to state the factual conclusion he's reached based on his research.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 18, 2007, 12:41 pm

Kaldaur wrote:Jesus, man, no one likes Hilary.

I do.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 18, 2007, 12:50 pm

Sueven wrote:
I'm not a big Rudy fan, but he's right when he says she has no experience.
What a fucking joke. Rudy has no experience. He was a fucking MAYOR. What kind of experience does he have building national consensus, or, god forbid, dealing with foreign policy? ZERO.

Are you really surprised that some women would vote for Hillary because she's a woman? Plenty of people vote for candidates for plenty of stupid fucking reasons. Leonaerd, the statement that people don't take women seriously because of this sort of shit may be true, but it's ludicrous, and I certainly hope that you don't feel that way. If the roles of the genders were reversed, some men would absolutely behave the same way. And, even without a gender reversal, some men will absolutely vote against Hillary because she is a woman, whether they will admit it or not. Women do NOT have a monopoly on gender bias! If we are going to disrespect women on this basis then men deserve no more respect.

I'm a Hillary fan. I don't understand why people find her 'evil' or someone to be 'afraid' of. I have yet to hear a good explanation of what is so bad about her. The only criticism that people seem to come up with, when pressed, is that she's a political animal. Which is true, and is a valid complaint, but is hardly a criticism that applies with more force to Clinton than to any other politician in the field.

Funk, I don't know if you'd be willing, but I'd be curious to hear why you think she represents 'all that is evil and wrong.'

Fash, I think your phrasing of the topic heading is unfair. Even overlooking your use of the word 'twat,' which the pollster certainly did not use, the phrasing of the subject makes it sound like the pollster is insulting some group of people when he's just trying to state the factual conclusion he's reached based on his research.

The title of the implies that, by what this pollster says - 25% of women are twats, because only a fucking retarded man-hating worthless twat would vote for a woman, just because she is a woman, period.

And sueven, I may be willing to toss a couple of examples around - but let me do it when I'm at home and not at work (today is a build day and I don't have time to research quotes, etc.)

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 18, 2007, 1:01 pm

Sueven wrote: Fash, I think your phrasing of the topic heading is unfair. Even overlooking your use of the word 'twat,' which the pollster certainly did not use, the phrasing of the subject makes it sound like the pollster is insulting some group of people when he's just trying to state the factual conclusion he's reached based on his research.

Your concerns have been noted. It was not my intention to mis-represent the pollsters conclusion.

Sueven wrote: I'm a Hillary fan. I don't understand why people find her 'evil' or someone to be 'afraid' of. I have yet to hear a good explanation of what is so bad about her. The only criticism that people seem to come up with, when pressed, is that she's a political animal. Which is true, and is a valid complaint, but is hardly a criticism that applies with more force to Clinton than to any other politician in the field.

I understand that almost anything said about her could be said for the other candidates as well... but not everything... I'm not prepared to get in to details, and you can certainly attack me for that, but I view the Rose Law Firm and Vince Foster as major blows against her credibility and motives. Her radically socialist views on certain things are also scary, though I think it's done more for effect than actual belief.. I think we need fresh blood and to get away from the clinton/bush cycle of bullshit.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » October 18, 2007, 1:07 pm

Sueven wrote: Leonaerd, the statement that people don't take women seriously because of this sort of shit may be true, but it's ludicrous, and I certainly hope that you don't feel that way. If the roles of the genders were reversed, some men would absolutely behave the same way. And, even without a gender reversal, some men will absolutely vote against Hillary because she is a woman, whether they will admit it or not. Women do NOT have a monopoly on gender bias! If we are going to disrespect women on this basis then men deserve no more respect.

Men would not vote for a male solely on the basis of the candidate being male as blatantly as women would vote for a female solely on the basis of her being a female. As the original post said, it's about "emotional" value. I stand by what i said, though I do agree that women do not have a monopoly on gender bias. They, however, do have a monopoly on "emotion isn't remotely pertinent to ruling a country" bias. In this instance men would deserve more respect because they can overlook gender (to a greater extent than females: not saying men are perfect) and focus on actual political stances and issues rather than human anatomy.

I'd like to see a poll indicating how many democratic men will not vote for Hillary solely on the basis of her being a female, with no regard to politics.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 18, 2007, 1:12 pm

I don't want Hillary anywhere near the White House ever again.

She's a cold hearted freak. I'll crank up the anti Hillary campaign in a few months. It's too early to get worked up over it right now.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » October 18, 2007, 4:50 pm

twat? In what meaning?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 4:57 pm

Is anyone actually that naive that they can't acknowledge that a lot of women are going to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is another woman?

This really isn't worthy of discussion.

It's like someone saying, "OMG DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT JUST BECAUSE CAKE IS NICE SOME PEOPLE WHO LIKE CAKE ARE GOING TO GO AND BUY CAKE THAT IS TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS"

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 18, 2007, 5:02 pm

I'm not surprised, but that doesn't make it any less of a retarded reason to vote for someone. It's just as retarded as people that will vote for one candidate, not really knowing or caring what they think, just because they don't like the other candidate.

Neither are a good reason to vote for someone, and if I ever talk to someone that has voted for someone for one of those reasons, I will go as far out of my way as I can to make them feel stupid, because that is precisely what they are.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 5:04 pm

It's not like any of the other reasons for voting for the various clusterfuck of idiots running for nominations would be any less retarded frankly (except possibly Obama).

Eg: Anyone who attempted to give a "legitimate" reason for voting for Rudy Guiliani.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 18, 2007, 5:05 pm

Nick wrote:This really isn't worthy of discussion.

No one required you to post, but I'm glad you did... if you don't feel it's worthy of discussion or you don't have anything to say, then don't... it's pretty simple.

I am merely attempting to make sure there is plenty of current topics to discuss as opposed to continuing the same shit-fest from over 2 months ago (aka the surge thread).. you guys can determine whether i'm doing a good thing or not on your own, and let me know in a pm.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 18, 2007, 5:06 pm

She represents all that is evil and wrong and I hope no one is retarded enough to vote for her for any reason, especially just because she is a woman. That is the worst mistake of all, because that is just a disguise, or a costume if you will - to hide the red skin, horns, and tail that lie beneath.

You're proof that propaganda works.
There is nothing inherently evil about socialism. .. no matter how much you try to argue that socialism and communism are one in the same.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 5:08 pm

Fash wrote:words

Well I obviously do have something to say, and that is "this is not worthy of discussion" based on the fact that it isn't a "current event".

I'm all for you posting lots of threads if you feel like it, but "the sky is blue" threads are pointless. I don't need to take that to PM, I can just say it here (it is a forum after all).

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 18, 2007, 5:23 pm

Funk wrote:And sueven, I may be willing to toss a couple of examples around - but let me do it when I'm at home and not at work (today is a build day and I don't have time to research quotes, etc.)

Sure, post if you want and don't if you don't want to.

Fash wrote:but I view the Rose Law Firm and Vince Foster as major blows against her credibility and motives. Her radically socialist views on certain things are also scary, though I think it's done more for effect than actual belief.. I think we need fresh blood and to get away from the clinton/bush cycle of bullshit.

Fair enough. I've always viewed those two issues as a combination of conspiracy theory and the fact that her dirty laundry is better
aired than almost anyone else. I'd have to do more research to have more of an opinion though. However, escaping the Clinton/Bush dynasties is, in my view, a very valid concern, and really the only sticking point that I have about Hillary. I don't know what 'radically socialist views' you're talking about, however. She's definitely not a libertarian, but I've never seen her as someone who's more 'socialist' than most other American politicians.

Fash wrote:Your concerns have been noted. It was not my intention to mis-represent the pollsters conclusion.

You're welcome to name your threads anything you want, I just figured this thread would be about something totally different.

Leo wrote:Men would not vote for a male solely on the basis of the candidate being male as blatantly as women would vote for a female solely on the basis of her being a female. As the original post said, it's about "emotional" value.

Well, there's a lot of reasons for that. One is that getting the opportunity to vote for a man is not unusual or novel. Another is that every candidate other than Hillary is a man, so there's no real resonance there.

Imagine for a moment that the gender roles were reversed. That is, imagine that men were the ones who had historically suffered discrimination, who were overwhelmingly the victims of rape, abuse, and sex crimes, who had been denied the right to vote until the 20th century, who had historically been viewed as the property of their mothers/wives, who had never had a member of their gender be president or even be a serious contender for the presidency and who were drastically underrepresented in every other arena of American power, from political to business positions. Do you think that, in this world, some number of men would vote for a man simply because of his gender? I absolutely think so. Do you think that this number would be lower than the number of women who are planning to vote for Hillary based on her gender? I don't think so. You may disagree, it's a matter of opinion and way too hypothetical for any kind of empirical resolution, but, in my opinion, arguing that men would behave differently in this particular way were the roles reversed reveals significant deeply held misogyny and internalization of archaic gender stereotypes.

Leo wrote:I'd like to see a poll indicating how many democratic men will not vote for Hillary solely on the basis of her being a female, with no regard to politics.

Such a poll would be meaningless. Many men know that it's politically incorrect to say so and thus would not say so. Other men may be unaware of the reasons behind their reflexive disdain for her and thus would be unable to say so even if they were willing to do so. This also means that the 25% number is likely too small; there are probably women who are unwilling to admit their bias (although I would imagine less so than for the male counterexample).

Winnow wrote:She's a cold hearted freak. I'll crank up the anti Hillary campaign in a few months. It's too early to get worked up over it right now.

Great, can't wait. Is this going to be anything like your ASU campaign? Or your anti-Apple campaign? If so, I'd like to pre-emptively thank you for converting a few dozen VV denizens to Hillary supporters.

Fash wrote:I am merely attempting to make sure there is plenty of current topics to discuss as opposed to continuing the same shit-fest from over 2 months ago (aka the surge thread).. you guys can determine whether i'm doing a good thing or not on your own, and let me know in a pm.

Thanks. It's a lot of threads, but VV's been much more interesting today than it has been lately.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » October 18, 2007, 5:36 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Hilary Clinton is pure evil.

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the
few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something
has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up
a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milos evic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was m ade by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

If I forward this to fifteen of my loved ones, will I be prosperous in the forthcoming year?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 18, 2007, 5:37 pm

I don't know about that, but I know if you went back to just "lurking" instead of "posting" "opinions" I am fairly confident we (we being everyone that has ever even heard of VV, and this includes you) would all be better off.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 18, 2007, 5:39 pm

Bagar- wrote:If I forward this to fifteen of my loved ones, will I be prosperous in the forthcoming year?

If you don't you will be killed in your nightmares by Freddy Kreuger wearing a Dick Cheny mask.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » October 18, 2007, 6:55 pm

Fash wrote:Ok so he didn't exactly call them twats... but what do you consider someone who will vote for someone just because they're female?... I'm not a big Rudy fan, but he's right when he says she has no experience. People of all genders should be afraid of Clinton and very skeptical of her past and her motives.

Uh huh. Did you really say that with a straight face? You think there isn't a larger percentage of people that won't vote for her because she's a female. I have no idea what would be considered worse by the average american: a black president or a female one.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 18, 2007, 7:03 pm

Sueven wrote:
Winnow wrote:She's a cold hearted freak. I'll crank up the anti Hillary campaign in a few months. It's too early to get worked up over it right now.
Great, can't wait. Is this going to be anything like your ASU campaign? Or your anti-Apple campaign? If so, I'd like to pre-emptively thank you for converting a few dozen VV denizens to Hillary supporters.

I did pretty well on my Creative Zen is better than iPod campaign. We have some Zen owners here and the Creative was in fact better!

I'm not trying to convert anyone to becoming Arizona Fans so that doesn't count.

I'm sure the republicans will expose Hillary for what she is at the appropriate time. If not, I'll step in and help out!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 7:14 pm

Winnow is so whimsically ironic I think I may just die of hilarity.

Only kidding, keep it up!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 19, 2007, 9:37 am

So who exactly is going to pay for this stupid bitch's national healthcare? I really dislike social spending sinceit encourages people ot be lazy fat worthless breeding fuckstains who do shit all ofr us except pump out babies to get paid more. Fuck the health care for them...fuck government assistance for life. It is called natural selection and that should be our national policy.

Drolgin Steingrinder · October 19, 2007, 10:20 am

Winnow wrote:I don't want Hillary anywhere near the White House ever again.

She's a cold hearted freak. I'll crank up the anti Hillary campaign in a few months. It's too early to get worked up over it right now.

I'm honest-to-goodness curious, why do you think she's a "cold hearted freak" ? To me she seems no worse than your average US politician, except perhaps that she doesn't adopt a 'one-of-the-people' persona constantly.

I'd be interested in knowing just what it is about her, both on a factual and emotional level, that makes the blood of you and many others burn so.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 19, 2007, 10:35 am

I don't find her any better or worse than the rest of them either. I do however believe in a smaller government and less taxes, so if I decide to vote, I'll be pulling the Rep. lever.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 19, 2007, 11:58 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So who exactly is going to pay for this stupid bitch's national healthcare?

She can have my share of what I paid for the Iraq war.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 19, 2007, 12:03 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So who exactly is going to pay for this stupid bitch's national healthcare?
She can have my share of what I paid for the Iraq war.

Cute. Don't answer the question, make a smart ass remark about something un-related.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 19, 2007, 12:20 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So who exactly is going to pay for this stupid bitch's national healthcare?
She can have my share of what I paid for the Iraq war.
Cute. Don't answer the question, make a smart ass remark about something un-related.

What's unrelated about it? He asked who was going to pay for it; taxes, obviously. I was volunteering my tax dollars. I don't have the option of not paying taxes, so given a choice, I'd rather my money went to improving quality of life rather than reducing quantity of life.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 19, 2007, 12:24 pm

How about option 3....not having to pay for either of them?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 19, 2007, 12:44 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So who exactly is going to pay for this stupid bitch's national healthcare? I really dislike social spending sinceit encourages people ot be lazy fat worthless breeding fuckstains who do shit all ofr us except pump out babies to get paid more. Fuck the health care for them...fuck government assistance for life. It is called natural selection and that should be our national policy.

Does 40 hours of minimum-wage work per week provide enough to pay for a family's healthcare insurance?

Serious question. If it does I agree* with you.

* for sufficiently small values of agree

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 19, 2007, 2:02 pm

Why does my pay need to be taken to cover for them if it is not sufficient? If they cannot afford to get health care insurance, which granted is broken from the top down just like the entire economic and government structure of the US...but that is a whole lenghty discussion in itself, then they have the option to get another job or put the wife to work. If they cannot afford a family, then they should NOT be starting one. There is just zero personal accountability these days and everyone wants to lay blame or responsibilty to someone else for their actions. You fucking do something, YOU fucking end up taking the results and dealing with them.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 19, 2007, 2:30 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I don't know about that, but I know if you went back to just "lurking" instead of "posting" "opinions" I am fairly confident we (we being everyone that has ever even heard of VV, and this includes you) would all be better off.

Don't be too confident. I'm enjoying Bagar's posts. I'm sorry that you are not.

On topic - At this time I'd vote for Hillary. I sure as shit would never ever vote for Rudy. Talk about 'pure evil'!

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I don't find her any better or worse than the rest of them either. I do however believe in a smaller government and less taxes, so if I decide to vote, I'll be pulling the Rep. lever.

I almost didn't believe I read that and then I saw who posted it... Are you seriously saying with Republicans you get a "smaller government and less taxes"? Other than responding with a "yes" what makes you say so?

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Why does my pay need to be taken to cover for them if it is not sufficient? If they cannot afford to get health care insurance, which granted is broken from the top down just like the entire economic and government structure of the US...but that is a whole lenghty discussion in itself, then they have the option to get another job or put the wife to work. If they cannot afford a family, then they should NOT be starting one. There is just zero personal accountability these days and everyone wants to lay blame or responsibilty to someone else for their actions. You fucking do something, YOU fucking end up taking the results and dealing with them.

What about those who started a family and were able to afford one then things like divorce, accidents or loss of income put them in a tough spot? Things aren't always as black and white as you make them out to be.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 19, 2007, 3:05 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So who exactly is going to pay for this stupid bitch's national healthcare? I really dislike social spending sinceit encourages people ot be lazy fat worthless breeding fuckstains who do shit all ofr us except pump out babies to get paid more. Fuck the health care for them...fuck government assistance for life. It is called natural selection and that should be our national policy.

Typical shit that many republican spew until they are the ones in need (i.e. a hurricane wipes out their city) then they realize there is a reason we build these societies to share costs and risks.

If you really feel strongly about this maybe you should campaign to privatize your socialized police force or socialized fire department. Fuck paying for roads and highways you never personally use as well.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 19, 2007, 3:58 pm

No...the point of a society is not to share risks that other idiots take. I won't move to Florida because I understand that big fucking hurricanes blow through there and wipe shit out. I don't move to LA because earthquakes will eventually destroy it. I deal with midwest horseshit weather because I don't feel the need to take a risk. If you choose to live in an area, then YOU need to deal with the consequences of YOUR choice. If YOU go and decide to do drugs your whole life and not work and be a prductive part of society, then YOU can die instead me and the rest of the productive member sof this societypaying for you to sponge off resources.

You are exactly the type of person that is what is wrong with the world right now. You think this is utopia and that everyone should be happy and joyous and the health and wellness fairies should flit about shooting free meds from Hillary Pez dispensers. That world only works if everyone in the society pulls their share. That is not happening and will not happen until something comes about to shake this retardation that we call a society to its core. We coddle the criminals, we reward the lazy, and we revere the murderers. That is not the way this country was EVER drawn up to work.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » October 19, 2007, 5:16 pm

I can understand not "wanting to pay for other's mistakes" but generalizing a large portion of the U.S population as lazy, baby-breeding scumbags that only seek to leech off of the governemnt is a taking it a bit too far. As was sttaed, everything isn't so black-and-white.

Funk, the same could be said for you, I suppose. At least the content of my posts aren't mostly chain e-mails and other people's opinions.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 19, 2007, 5:30 pm

Are you saying there is not a large population that does it? Regardless, my main point in this entire stink is that slapping a band-aid by just throwing out an across the board helath care is doing nothing at all to actually get to the root of what the problems are. That hypothetical person making minimum wage supporting a family would find it easier to make ends meet if they actually were not being taxed as heavily to make sure some asshole was being given more cash to not work...and I am not talking about someone who just lost their job and is attempting to get gainful employment.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 19, 2007, 5:42 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:That hypothetical person making minimum wage supporting a family would find it easier to make ends meet if they actually were not being taxed as heavily to make sure some asshole was being given more cash to not work...and I am not talking about someone who just lost their job and is attempting to get gainful employment.

Minumum Wage + Family to support = low taxes and Earned Income Credit.

That said, I'm not a fan of socialism of medicine either, I do pay attention to those in countries that do have it on the subject though. Canada and England do have it, if I recall (as well as the high taxes to pay for it).

I'm all about where the rubber meets the road. Is Hillary's end run a completely socialized medical system, or our current system but Government playing nanny to dictate everyone has insurance and make it a benefit for those that cannot afford it while raping further those who can to pay for the others who cannot "for our common good" and growth of Big Brother government.

Will non-citizens also benefit from this?

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 19, 2007, 6:40 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Winnow wrote:I don't want Hillary anywhere near the White House ever again.

She's a cold hearted freak. I'll crank up the anti Hillary campaign in a few months. It's too early to get worked up over it right now.
I'm honest-to-goodness curious, why do you think she's a "cold hearted freak" ? To me she seems no worse than your average US politician, except perhaps that she doesn't adopt a 'one-of-the-people' persona constantly.

I'd be interested in knowing just what it is about her, both on a factual and emotional level, that makes the blood of you and many others burn so.

i hate her because she wants to take away my porn and video games and make it so i can't hear people say shit on tv