“We must stop thinking...”

Posted by Solver 12 years, 2 months ago to Politics
56 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The full quote is,

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
- Hilary Clinton


To stop thinking, we need to evade reality. Then we can all agree that divining what is best for society can't be individually decided by all those people within society – For this would allow individuals voluntary choice to collaborate or not. No, such decisions would require some nebulous super group think mind that is more than willing to use any means necessary to achieve its glorious ends. It is then about effectively utilizing the psychological and physical tools of terror to compel mass sacrifice for the greater goodness of the social welfare, where more and more individuals in society would be continuously pulled down until the goals of fairness and equality are executed.

- back to thinking -
In this world village above who do you think would rule well above the rest?
Hint: Her initials are H.C.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by eddieh 12 years, 2 months ago
    I believe her decision to run will be made after the Nov . elections. If the Rep. mak a lot of gains she won't run just to be a lame duck.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 12 years, 2 months ago
    “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

    Fair enough. What's best for society is 1) Hillary is not elected President, and 2) we start thinking of the individual.

    It's nice to be able to agree with Hillary for once. :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not about easy access it's about principles and consequences. :)
    The candidate pool was contaminated last time..I made the same argument... which really boils down to the lesser of two evils...and I will not vote for the lesser of two evils every again. If they don't earn my vote, they don't get it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by katrinam41 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, LetsShrug--those are problems to be addressed, but with what's out there in the candidate pool, I wonder just how well anyone can deal with the entrenched system. I hope the good doctor can get a handle on this gun issue, and I hope Mr. West can learn from previous attempts at a war on drugs. I have a problem deciding what is the best course on drug use. I want the freedom to choose, yet I don't want so much easy access to an extremely addictive substance like heroin when I have children and grandchildren who will have to deal with whatever comes along. Drug use and availability is one big topic in need of much hard discussion...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Her desire to want to be President and her ability to campaign for it are 2 different things. It's no easy ride. She's done it twice with Bill, and half for herself. Her book reviews will likely be one of the determining factors as well as her health. She can't truly hide that forever. Maybe there's nothing there.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    See, I see the opposite. Through their voting record, people in this country have shown over and over that they want family dynasty leadership. I can't, for the life of me, see why people vote that way. A big nation with all kinds of qualified people and we get stuff like Doris Matsui, Jeb Bush, etc... I am willing to bet that at least 50% of the people stand in the voting booth and just see a familiar name and punch that ticket there. Just absolute mindlessness. What a bunch of friggin easy marks...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, I completely agree with your assessment. I just don't see in her the aggressiveness I see in Hillary. Maybe it is carefully concealed. They are both liars, so it's entirely possible that Warren has just been playing the heads-down game.

    The problem for Warren is that she is a nobody politically. She's never been a politician. Never had to campaign or debate. She's an academic that has spent her time hiding behind her false status as a minority. I'm betting that putting her in the limelight would make her melt faster than the Wicked Witch of the West after Dorothy threw a bucket of water on her.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The opposition would have to win by beyond the margin of fraud, which is growing larger every day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MAK 12 years, 2 months ago
    Thinking liberal = oxymoron - yes?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 12 years, 2 months ago
    This is a terrible statement. It appalls me that so many people, including many of my friends, think that it is great. This statement pretty much epitomizes the antithesis of my philosophy.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Warren has the advantage of being unkown to the general populous, and is able to take advantage of two of the three pillars of identity politics: womanhood and minority status. As long as the MSM can fool 50.5% of the American people long enough with their egalitarian smokescreen, Warren could probably win.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Carson is not clear on his gun control stance and West (I just heard in an interview with Stossel) is in favor of a war on drugs. (aka forced moral personal behavior).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rainman0720 12 years, 2 months ago
    Not sure how we'll do this, but I'll take that bet.

    Her just-released book has been a sales disaster, and the media coverage hasn't exactly been enthusiastic. Simon & Schuster shipped over 1M copies, but only 60K sold the first week (well below the 150K they were counting on).

    Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air tried repeatedly tried to pin Clinton down on her ever-changing position on gay marriage.

    The public didn't stand in line to buy her book, and NPR wasn't playing nice in an interview.

    Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but I just don't think the public is all that much enamored with her.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will disagree that Warren is more dangerous, but she's probably more electable - even given her blatant lying to obtain minority status as a "native American".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree that Jeb is out, but I don't think Hillary's ambitions will allow her to bow out without taking a shot, and the Clintons are still one of the main two power-brokers in the Democrat Party (with the crew behind Obama as the other).

    Do I think she's electable? I hope that Benghazi is the proverbial noose around her neck, but there are enough who are willing to back her no matter what that I can't expect sanity or reason to prevail.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ DriveTrain 12 years, 2 months ago
    She's inadvertently identified her ideology by type. Note the line - in all-caps, no less - between #24 and #25 in this thing:

    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ri...

    I know it's considered distasteful to call your ideological opponent a Nazi, but if it looks like a duck (well, it looks like the illustrations Mary GrandPré did of Dolores Umbridge in the Potter books and the similarity doesn't stop there, but that's beside the point,) and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good find. Will Americans continue to unthinkingly vote for the policy's of another National Socialist Party?

    "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

    #25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

    The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

    The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by katrinam41 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    and I hope you are wrong, too, Abaco, but all the signs point to her doing us again... Too many out there refuse to think, to even remember what they heard on the telly last night, let alone a few months or years ago. If I had my druthers, my dream ticket would have a West/Carson bent--West to give 'em a fight, Carson to teach them to think.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I see the same thing.
    In addition, the current psychological state of the union is to reject new thoughts about government and its role in our lives.
    Rand would have to single-handedly change this collective mindset.
    It's not going to "take a village" ... It's going to "take a miracle".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 12 years, 2 months ago
    Hilary Clinton is being run down hard in the media repeatedly. So I doubt she will be the Democratic candidate. I would be delighted if she was because I think it will be easier to defeat her. The one who gets the glowing press is Elizabeth Warren. She is a much more dangerous pure socialist ideologue.

    It would be very exciting to have her facting of with Rand Paul. But I doubt that the GOP is together enough to make a clear and clean choice. They will likely come out with some other fossil or a modern businessman deeply in bed with government. I swear that the last couple of elections they really had no interest in winning.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nope. i doubt she'll even run. I do get a sense of people not wanting a "dynasty". I think that will also kill off Jeb.
    Besides, Hillary will lose in a debate. Her only hope is the young college kids, and they just don't know who she is other than, a) a woman, b) someone their parents liked.
    But, the college kids are starting to shift as well.
    I think Jeb/Christi will be suicide for the GOP.

    Rand Paul is radical because the MSM told me so. What more does anyone need? :-)

    Judge Judy for Pres and VP - 2016!!! "Ummm is not answer!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ISank 12 years, 2 months ago
    Maybe she needs to write less and read more.....and may I suggest some Adam Smith

    "Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
    The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II, p. 456, para. 9.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo