skip to main |
skip to sidebar
From today's big speech:
It’s America’s basic bargain. If you do your part you ought to be able to get ahead. And when everybody does their part, America gets ahead too....
Prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain too."
From
Hillary's announcement of her candidacy in January 2007:
[I]t is time to renew the promise of America. Our basic bargain that no matter who you are or where you live, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can build a good life for yourself and your family.
I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America, and we believed in that promise.
I still do. I’ve spent my entire life trying to make good on it.
Whether it was fighting for women’s basic rights or childrens’ basic health care. Protecting our Social Security, or protecting our soldiers. It’s a kind of basic bargain, and we’ve got to keep up our end.
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Did you expect something different?
Democrats believe in equality of results.
Republicans (At least the non politicians) believe in equality of opportunity.
So, when did Hillary! ever "play by the rules"?
Tell us more about playing by the rules, Hillary.
It boggles my mind that the utter hypocrisy isn't fatal to her campaign.
God, this woman is just evil !
"God, this woman is just evil !"
That basic bargain talk sure is something devilish! It's insane and evil!
I keep hearing " Bargain Basement, Bargain Basement" when that woman speaks.
Not sure how this all works out with Rubio's yaght fittingly into Hillary's pool, with a lot of water all around. Hard to play the normal American when living in such a mansion, and giving her daughter a > $10 million starter home.
In any case, the bargain should be that if you work hard, etc, you get ahead, and if you don't, you fall behind. This worked for hundreds of years in this country. But it was unfair that those who refused to work didn't have all the nice things that people who work had. So, the progressives/Dems gave those who don't work much of what those who do got. And expect the rest of us to pay for it. That isn't part of the bargain that most of us thought we were signing up for.
God, this woman is just evil !
She is too banal and inept to be evil, she is just supremely corrupt.
Dems' basic bargain is a bargain for their base; for the rest of us, not so much.
"Protecting our soldiers" is supposedly part of it; ambassadors, not so much.
"It’s America’s basic bargain. If you do your part you ought to be able to get ahead."
She's talking about herself. She feels she did her part, and now she's entitled to get ahead.
"I’ve spent my entire life trying to make good on it."
Make good on [the basic bargain) for herself.
The lady is a boring fraud. She can't even lie effectively, which is one reason she is such a lousy politician.
Basically, "basic" in Spanish, would not work for Hillary. It has an 'o' patriarchal ending to it. Basico
Basically, the basics of a relatable bio are more in sync with student loan Rubio.
Basically, the basics of Hillary are mostly shrouded and complicado.
What a mountain of weaseling and lying and shifting and prevaricating and bobbing and weaving and ducking and smearing and lying some more, this mad lady has to climb to get where she apparently desperately wants to go.
It is hard for me to fathom a soul that contemplates all that and still wants to forge ahead.
Or is it rather that all that money piling in feels like a huge gale of wind at her back. It must be that getting paid $200K for a drippy, vacuous 1 hour speech is conducive of insanely high concentrations of hubris.
And did you catch her claim that she would be the youngest woman president? Not so if Carly wins.
And the crowd was mostly white. Not diverse.
And what a pathetic speech.
Hillary was raised in Park Ridge Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. House values and resident income in Park Ridge are about x2 of the Illinois average. Hillary went to Wellesley, than Yale.
Is this middle class? I suppose by some definitions. Seems to me that, like many politicians (but not Bill Clinton), Hillary won life's lottery.
I thought the basic bargain with the Clintons was that if you elect one you get 'em both. Wasn't that the line back in '92?
VOGO - Vote one, get one free
Sometimes free is too expensive.
First one to use the phrase "basic bitch" loses. Oh, damn!
eric:
Democrats believe in equality of results.
No, they don't. They do not respect individual dignity. They reject intrinsic (i.e. unearned) value. They believe that redistributive change, especially at the national level, will reduce individual/personal liability, and will establish a stable environment. That is their fitness function: stability. While it correlates with individual welfare, that outcome is incidental, not based on principle.
That said, perhaps it doesn't matter. Good perceptions go along way to securing capital and control.
The progs believe that if you get ahead, "you didn't build that" and you should "check your privilege" and "at some point you've made enough money" (Unless you're a Clinton) They believe in confiscatory tax rates and choking regulations.
Mrs. Clinton was never middle class, her father was a successful businessman. She has no first hand experience with us.
It’s America’s basic bargain.
Umm...can't help thinking I could do better at Walmart.
I just watched the "Yesterday" clip. Her punchline is a fifty year old song. Is that supposed to make her seem young? Earth to Hillary! campaign, the Millennials do not worship The Beatles the way Gen X and the Boomers do. The whole line reminds me that every time I see a Subaru Outback around here with some sort of political bumper sticker, the driver (9 out of 10 times) will be in her sixties and still dressed like Woodstock was last week.
Yup--and Marco Rubio jumped on Hillary's "Yesterday" quote. Little Marco wasn't even born when the Beatles sang "Yesterday". Heckfire I wasn't even out of law school (Class of 68) when they were singing "Yesterday". So Hillary is old enough to remember Yesterday --she IS Yesterday, as in Yesterday's News. But Marco isn't.
Still he jumped on Ms. Pantsuit's gaffe like a duck on a june bug. Good for him.
As for what I do or don't believe in (since she was targeting allegedly old white GOP geezers) Ms. Basic Bargain doesn't have a frickin' clue. But she's good at projecting false assumptions. You need to wash your ears out after a Hillary speech.
Anyone who has a driver is not middle class.
The "Scooby Doo" van was also a recycle from a previous campaign of hers.
Hilarity doesn't play by the rules so you will have to.
"eric said...
Democrats believe in equality of results.
Republicans (At least the non politicians) believe in equality of opportunity.
6/13/15, 9:14 PM"
Nope.
Republicans believe in wealth distributed by the market.
Democrats believe in wealth distributed by connections.
Republicans believe it should be what you know, Democrats believe it should be who you know.
She's no bargain.
It's striking how often the favorite rhetoric of politicians is often in stark contrast to their own behavior. "Playing by the rules," a favorite of Bill and now Hillary, is a good example. I also think of Obama's penchant for condemning "petty partisan bickering" when he's the pettiest, most partisan bickerer we've ever had in the Oval Office.
"[I]t is time to renew the promise of America. Our basic bargain that no matter who you are or where you live, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can build a good life for yourself and your family."
She has never worked hard or played by the rules, but she certainly has built a good life for her family. Billions in "contributions" and bribes to the Clinton Family Foundation prove the basis of her bargain. Forget investing in new plant, material, or technology. "Investing" in politicians has a very high ROI.
bar·gain
ˈbärɡən/
noun
noun: bargain; plural noun: bargains
1.
an agreement between two or more parties as to what each party will do for the other.
"the extraconstitutional bargain between the northern elite and the southern planters"
2.
a thing bought or offered for sale more cheaply than is usual or expected.
"the secondhand table was a real bargain"
1.
negotiate the terms and conditions of a transaction.
part with something after negotiation but get little or nothing in return.
Origin
Middle English: from Old French bargaine (noun), bargaignier (verb); probably of Germanic origin and related to German borgen ‘borrow.’
"Working hard" is a micro aggression.
"Doing your part" is also a micro aggression. Mrs Clinton does not understand the new left
I made a comment to this effect on a prior thread:
"You can't hide the fact Hillary is a 67 year old woman with a wrinkles, a shrill voice and a wide caboose."
I should have said:
"You can't hide the fact Hillary is a 67 year old woman with wrinkles, dated political views, a shrill voice and a wide caboose."
There's an old adage in politics, borrowed from the acting profession:
"If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made."
The trouble with Hillary is, she's incapable of faking sincerity.
You're all being terribly unfair. She gave that speech gratis!
From author Gail Sheehy in Politico: The Grandmother in Chief
And here’s another thing: She’s passionate about equal rights for women, but at her stage of post-menopausal feminism, she does not threaten or alienate men. Rather, she co-opts them, turning them into allies. This is old-fashioned feminine wiles at its most mature. It is also why two of the most powerful men in America—Bill and Barack—will be among Clinton’s most avid supporters in her second run for president.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-grandmother-in-chief-118978.html#ixzz3d2l45FNr
It's hard to read this tripe. It's a bizarro world of leftism, distorted by aggressive feminism, peppered with a big game of "Let's Pretend"
There have been strong successful women throughout history. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. Ditto Condi Rice. Ditto Carly Fiorino. Ditto our esteemed hostess, Professor AA. These women earned it.
But Hillary did not. She's a weird, power hungry political animal, who's achieved nothing. All the ambition of her husband, with none of the charm.
Does anyone think Barack Obama is going to back Hillary? I expect the same level of enthusiastic support as Bill gave Al Gore. Actually, scratch that, I expect a long rambling speech from the president which mentions himself 10 times more than it mentions Hillary at the DNC to congratulate her on winning the nomination and then that will be it.
Yes, Walmart quality....
This means her administration will break the minute the voters take it home. It will be impossible to repair.
And how will the GOP counter that? By proposing to instead return to the policies of wild-eyed economic uncertainty that they brought us in 2008 and 1929? What a dilemma for them.
Oh, I see how the thread reacts. Shoot the messenger. Yep. I guess Hillary's no Mitt Romney.
I guess R&B would have voted for the party of the Klan in '29. Very principled of him!
Yes! That's why Hoover didn't do anything effective about the Great Depression! No solutions were white supremacist enough!
It's a good thing the party of the Klan changed to Republican with Richard Nixon. Then David Duke might not have had a party to call home in 1989.
@R&B - "It's a good thing the party of the Klan changed to Republican with Richard Nixon. "
This is a left-wing canard, sorry.
Check the Electoral Map of 1976 and then please explain why all the former Confederate States voted for Dem Carter, not Republican Ford.
"Yes! That's why Hoover didn't do anything effective about the Great Depression! No solutions were white supremacist enough!"
You are completely missing the point, R&B.
If modern Republicans can be held responsible for whatever Republicans of the 1920s did, then Democrats of today can be held responsible for whatever Democrats in the 1920s did.
You only need to not be a partisan ass to see this.
"It's a good thing the party of the Klan changed to Republican with Richard Nixon."
The Democrats, after 1968, purposely turned their backs on the white working class. Why? Snobbery. Plus the white working class was not quite as tractable as the minority coalition it was replaced with.
Democrats interpret this, in their usual self-serving fashion, as "the party of the Klan changed to Republican with Richard Nixon."
Well, accounting for the retardation of people who don't realize that not everything in politics is immediate, we can see that the message was fully accepted just four short years later, and just about every year since.
It's a canard to deny that Lee Atwater was influential or that his quote on his own strategy was interpreted wrong. The fact that Bush relied on him as heavily as he did in 1988 after Reagan is evidence that the guy was no fly-by-night operation. He, and his strategies, represented the heart and soul of Republican dirty politics. A politics from which he didn't convert until lying on his death bed. And a politics in which other Republicans remain in a full-on embrace. Especially when they talk about "welfare queens" and "food stamp presidents".
If modern Republicans can be held responsible for whatever Republicans of the 1920s did, then Democrats of today can be held responsible for whatever Democrats in the 1920s did.
You only need to not be a partisan ass to see this.
Well, I don't know what kind of an ass fails to see that embracing the same actions of 1929 in 2008 makes you responsible for failing in the same way. If Republicans had changed their ideology back to something simply more moderate or even economically mainstream - let alone close to what Teddy Roosevelt stood for, then it's those policies to which people would hold them to account. But they embrace proven policy failures and therefore need to take responsibility for the failures that those policies have produced.
Democrats, OTOH, shook off the Klan. And it's hard to know which sort of Klan-like sympathies you'd want us to believe they ever endorsed as a party policy. The shaken-off Klan - as everyone but the most die-hard right-wing partisan hack knows - migrated to the Republicans between 1968 and 1980 (even though the low info voter "Bay Area Guy" demands that this should have taken place immediately rather than over a decade - as is normal in political transitions). Even David Duke first tried to run as a Democrat before realizing that his more long-term fortunes lay with the Republicans. So he immediately switched his allegiance and never looked back.
If you guys are so pissed about accepting racists into your party, why do you do so little to even acknowledge them, let alone speak up about them? I know why. It's because you like winning more than you like being decent, honest and curious about the actual truth of things.
The Democrats, after 1968, purposely turned their backs on the white working class. Why? Snobbery. Plus the white working class was not quite as tractable as the minority coalition it was replaced with.
Democrats interpret this, in their usual self-serving fashion, as "the party of the Klan changed to Republican with Richard Nixon."
Total bullshit. It's the Republicans who decided that hatred of hippies, progressives, activists against segregation and imperial war was the rallying cry. And "working" class people agreed. So they took the votes. Not controversial. That racist attitudes are more common among lower socioeconomic brackets than higher ones is what made Lee Atwater's racist strategy work. He just figured it was poor whites and the South as a whole rather than poor blacks, etc., who mattered to their vote. Pat Buchanan's memo to Nixon underscores this:
``second era of Reconstruction is over; the ship of Integration is going down; it is not our ship; it belongs to liberalism-we cannot salvage it; and we ought not to be aboard . . . For the foreseeable future, it is all over for compulsory social integration.``
That attitude continues among Republicans to this day.
To not see it, you'd either have to be completely blind, or just feel that certain Americans (those would be the black ones) are too far beneath you to merit any human consideration. Those attitudes speak for themselves, and you know they're not defensible. So you deny them in ways that beggar the belief of any form of rationality known to man. Cover the eyes, cover the ears. Pretend, pretend, pretend.
"Total bullshit. It's the Republicans who decided that hatred of hippies, progressives, activists against segregation and imperial war was the rallying cry."
The imperialist war started by Democrat Jack Kennedy and brought to full flower by Democrat Lyndon Johnson. The imperialist war supported by Democrats until, oh, 1968.
You are proving my point for me. There is no self reflection, and no curiosity on the Left these days. You never know when your inquiries might lead you into bad think.
That JFK started or LBJ escalated Vietnam is immaterial. Nixon escalated it, as well, even taking to expanding it into Cambodia.
What matters is that anti-war sentiment was on the left, not the right. If the right has a sense of military restraint, then Nixon didn't show it through his secret Cambodian war and the people who hated the protesters didn't show it either.
You seem to not care that you can't impeach what I'm saying, so go ahead and continue to badmouth on partisan terms. What sort of "self reflection" or "curiosity" am I missing? I never denied JFK or LBJ's roles, and it's only your partisan point-scoring presumptions that simply assumed I would, or somehow never knew about them.
If you're as interested in historical truth as you accuse me of not being, you would have known full-well that a much more anti-war candidate, a Democrat, than Nixon would have won in 1968 had he not been assassinated: RFK.
Were you born yesterday? You previously gave me the impression of at least being old enough to know the era.
The anti-war sentiment displayed by Wilson & FDR. The anti-war sentiment displayed by Truman when he nuked two cities and then got the US involved in Korea as "peace keepers" (Republican Eisenhower ended that war). Democrat Jimmy Carter revived draft registration after it was ended by Republican Gerry Ford. Clinton bombed the Balkans. One of the fun things about the 2004 Democrat presidential candidate slate was that it had two contenders -- Wes Clark and John Kerry -- who have had credible accusations of war crimes made against them. Both were celebrated by Dems as anti-war candidates. And finally, we have Obama Africanus, conqueror of Libya. Hillary master minded the whole Libya thing, and it looks like she will be the Dem candidate in 2016. Great anti-war party you got there, R&B. I wonder what a pro-war party would look like?
The middle-class disappeared with NAFTA. Now they're trying to pass a welfare bill to retrain the people whose jobs were exported/deleted.
Her rhetoric is very dated. 20th Century drivel.
Always amusing to hear R&B's go off after pulling his head out of Sarah Palin's uterus long enough to bleat something or other.
It took on average 30 years for republicans to take control of southern state houses after 1968 and even longer to take state senate control in those states.
I worked for a suburban republican in the early 80's in Texas and you couldn't get those stupid white, rural yellow-dog dems to even consider the republican.
No, the most important factors in the rise of republican politics in the south was the wholesale adoption of insane lefty positions on key policies at the national level (does no one remember McGovern?) as well as the embrace of more business-friendly economic policies in the southern states which led to large migrations of industries and businesses from the blue-state model states to those southern states.
Which of course meant politically significant migrations of skilled workers and professionals as well as their families which changed dramatically the profiles of those districts.
But hey, we are talking about R&B's here. Just a few weeks ago he was bleating about how conservatives hate western civilization and knowledge when "everybody" with a pulse knows it's the left doing any and everything they can to denigrate that civilization, drive western civ out of the curriculum and piss on the memory of any DWEM (Dead White European Male) they come across.
On second thought, noted pharmacological gynecologist R&B would certainly better off hanging out in the lets-examine-sarah-palins-uterus-much-more-closely brigade.
R&B's (channeling John Kerry no doubt): "That JFK started or LBJ escalated Vietnam is immaterial. Nixon escalated it, as well, even taking to expanding it into Cambodia."
LOL
Yes, of course, it's all "immaterial"!!
I guess that's why noted genius John Kerry believed it was the sweet dulcet tones of Nixon's voice as President that greeted him via radio on Kerry's supposed (non-existent) secret forays "into Cambodia" at Christmas in 1968, even though Nixon wasn't President.
I guess that little factoid is "immaterial" as well.
Something just reminded that Reagan was denounced in the same terms by both the American Left and the Russian Commies. He was a "cowboy", the beloved character from American history. But then we are talking about the party whose delegates -- subjected to strict ethnic and gender quotas -- booed the boy scouts in their 2000 convention and booed God in their 2012 convention.
"Democrats, OTOH, shook off the Klan."
Democrats went from KKK to Al Sharpton, Bill Ayres and Louis Farrakhan. Not much of a change to me.
"That JFK started or LBJ escalated Vietnam is immaterial. Nixon escalated it, as well, even taking to expanding it into Cambodia."
By the end of Nixon's first term, the number of US troops in Vietnam was decreased by a factor of 22 - from 536100 in 1968 to 24200 in 1972. Some escalation.
By this standard, Obama greatly escalated the war in Iraq, by expanding it into Syria, Libya and Yemen.
awesome blog!
www.tiongsonlaw.com
immigration, accident, divorce, hurt in las vegas, litigating malpractice, injured in vegas, hurt by a doctor, las vegas personal injury attorney, negotiating clark county Nevada cases, traumatic injuries, hotel accident, decades of experience, casino negligence, nevada dui, medical malpractice, devastating accident, client rights, protecting victims
Hey Hillary: The "basic bargain" is that we the people have to follow the law, and so do you the politicians.
So get back to us when you've decided to start following the law. Until then? Get stuffed.
Whatever it takes for you to keep your head up Nixon's ass and absolve him of the things that he did as easily as his predecessors did, Drago.
I guess the Full Metal Jacket guy was right about Texas being full of nuthin' but "steers and queers."
Really, you don't need to keep your head up Nixon's ass, Dragola. The guy's dead. Put your head up the ass of a living guy, instead.
Rhythm and Balls: "Whatever it takes for you to keep your head up Nixon's ass and absolve him of the things that he did as easily as his predecessors did, Drago."
I guess it's "immaterial" that John Kerry couldn't keep his lies about Richard Nixon straight.
Really R&B's, if you want to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt you could easily have done so by simply claiming he misspoke or something innocuous like that.
But I guess you simply prefer to continue viewing Kerry's colon from the inside.
To each his own.
R&B's: "I guess the Full Metal Jacket guy was right about Texas being full of nuthin' but "steers and queers.""
Well, I wouldn't know about that, having been raised in California and stopping over in Texas just long enough to check a few necessary boxes as I moved along my path to other new and exciting places.
But by all means, continue with your hilarious substance-free rants.
But by all means, continue with your hilarious substance-free rants.
As long as that's all you're doing.
For those of you who aren't Boomers, president Richard Nixon ended the war in Vietnam begun by Democrats, way back in ye olden times. Nixon has been dead for over twenty years.
Remember the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act? The 1999 law, signed by Bill Clinton, that broke down the barriers between commercial banks and investment banks? The repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley is widely blamed, by those on the Left, for the financial crisis of 2008 that destroyed so much of America's wealth. Wages and employment still haven't recovered. If spending other peoples' money would fix a recession, we should all be f'n millionaires by now.
Well, just to keep it going down the memory hole, here are Bill Clinton's words as he rushed to sign that disaster in the making. Any time you hear what a wonderful steward of the American economy Bill Clinton was, think of what Clinton said about Gramm-Leach-Bliley:
Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.
Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.
Removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial services firms will be able to diversify their product offerings and thus their sources of revenue. They will also be better equipped to compete in global financial markets.
Lessee? What was going on in 2008 that might have precipitated and economic melt down? A democrat congress passed a law the would make housing "affordable", to peopler who had no money. The whitehouse wrote to congress no less than 10 times that people with no money have no way of paying back said borrowed money. The whitehouse was ignored. banks trying to minimize their risk started bundling morgages. That not working, a game of toxic paper musical chairs ended with the taxpayer left standing. Then, like FDR Obama exacerbates the problem picking and choosing the recoverys winners. GM bond holder were hit hard. As was anyone in the solar and battery industry .
The "basic bargain" is, you become Secretary of State, take money from Russian oligarchs, the oligarchs use you in their attempt to corner the uranium market and you become wealthy. Oh, and then you make the e-mails disappear.
What could be more basic than that?
I think when those Dead White Guys founded the United States, the basic bargain (with exceptions in the slave states) was pretty much that the government defends you from aggression, and then pretty much leaves you the hell alone. Now the basic bargain seems to be politicians running on the promise (to use Mencken's phraseology) "to turn A loose in B's cornfield."
Nixon violated the Logan Act by secretly meeting with the Vietnamese in order to sabotage LBJ's peace negotiations with them, so that he could enact the exact same terms with them later once he was in office, and get the credit for it. In the meantime, tens of thousands Americans were killed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा