Sunday, May 27, 2012
Damsel for a Dude
I'm going to say something that a lot of people have probably thought but haven't had the chutzpah to utter. I really think that President Obama should stand down and let Mrs. Clinton run (I would prefer Mr. Clinton but he obviously can't run). The gal is far more popular (to the point where she could conceivably defeat Mr. Romney handily), far more competent (face it here, folks, Mr. Obama is flailing), and, while she may in fact have been a polarizing figure at one time, far more respected by both sides of the aisle (the Tea Party members of Congress, quite possibly excepted)..........................................................................................And, please, this is not in any way an indictment of Mr. Obama as a human being. The fellow, while I haven't always been enthralled by some of his rhetoric of late, is a solid patriot and a good and decent family man. I'm just not entirely certain that he's up to the job any longer. Sadly. Time to move on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
No. Dumb.
While I do believe Obama is a decent and good family man, and by no means hates this nation as some hold, I agree Will Hillary may make a better leader than Obama. However, with the attitude it takes a village to raise a child I would be very concerned with her collectivist proclivities.
You may get your chance to vote for her in 2016. It ain't gonna happen in 2012.
"Rational" Nation: However, with the attitude it takes a village to raise a child...
NOOOOOOO!!!! How DARE any parent think anyone outside the family can help in raising their child! Schools should be abolished and all kids should be home-schooled... if their parents so choose. Otherwise they can go without education. Also we need to get rid of daycare. The mother should stay home, or the kid can be locked in a closet or the basement. Relying (even just a little) on anyone else to help raise your kid is immoral.
Actually, I'm also more generous to Hillary for the "village" statement than RN is. While it can imply hardline statism, to me it doesn't necessarily... the village can include anything ranging from NGOs to charities to neighbors and friends and concerned community leaders helping out.
Yeah, dmarks, the debate is clearly one of degree and I certainly don't think that Les was in any way arguing for those doomsday scenarios of wd.
Will, you are once again correct.
Actually, Les, I wouldn't mind "abolishing" tenure. Anderson Cooper had a story on tonight about this total pervert teacher up in Rochester and they simply cannot get rid of her. It almost made me want to vomit.
Will; How has the teachers union come out on this? In my area, there have been numerous cases of teachers caught raping children over the years, and each time, the teachers' union fights to keep them in the classroom.
They're defending the woman to the hilt.
Will: I certainly don't think that Les was in any way arguing for those doomsday scenarios of wd.
You don't think "Rational" Nation meant what he said? Why do you think he lied? Whatever... I guess you were right, because in the next comment "Rational" retracts his previous comment. I guess he realized how stupid it was.
I heard nothing about "abolishing schools", "doing away with day care" and "mothers staying at home", wd.
Will: I heard nothing about "abolishing schools", "doing away with day care" and "mothers staying at home", wd.
Must be because you didn't read carefully enough, which is odd, considering that his comment wasn't that long.
"Rational" Nation said, "with the attitude it takes a village to raise a child I would be very concerned with her collectivist proclivities".
According to Wikipedia, HRC's book,
"presents her vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child's well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child's needs".
A reviewer on Amazon says, "[HRC] repeatedly says that she does not think it is up to the state to care for children, but rather, it is up to all of us to see that we, as a culture, ensure that our children are well-cared for".
Since "Rational" expressed his disagreement that "individuals and groups outside the home" should not be involved in the raising of children, I logically deduced that he supports abolishing schools and daycare... seeing as those are "individuals and groups outside the home".
He wasn't specific about what he meant, just that he felt that she was too collectivistic for his personal taste. As for your deduction, it was as rash as it generally is.
Will: As for your deduction, it was as rash as it generally is.
He said he disagreed with the case the book makes. I took him at his word.
Being against collectivism doesn't necessarily mean obliterating the entire system.
Post a Comment