Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #31 
Dewey its pretty easy to see the differences if you are looking between what Obama has done even compared to Bill Clinton.  Clinton I believe is a socialist, but when he lost the congress and the people of the country said we dont want govt healthcare etc he changed courses and worked with the republican congress which was more private sector centered and got a balanced budget etc... Clintons foreign policy wasnt much better than obamas.  There are many dems that believe in private sector as the basis of our country but want differing levels of govt assistance, Lieberman, for example.  Alot of the people they had to buy off to get healthcare passed.  Most are now out of office because their constituency didnt want socialized medical care or govt.  I think if you chose to look there are as many difference levels in dems as there are in repubs, but all the repubs basically believe in the way our country was founded, unlike the dems, of which the more extreme elements are openly working for even communist practices like Warren in Massachusetts saying Mao is one of her favorite people.  Pretty scary and sad.

Thank God the country is very divided in that respect.  We just need to wake up more of the electorate.  BUT THAT IS WHY OUR FOUNDERS LIMITED VOTING?

__________________
Susan
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #32 
Sorry the ? is supposed to be !    I know limited voting privileges probably horrifies many people on this forum.
__________________
Susan
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #33 
sbmom - Thanks for the reply.  If you think Bill Clinton is a Socialist too, then I understand your position.  It's just that I didn't hear that word much in the nineties.  I was curious as to why.
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10er

He is a socialist, what I don't get is why he just doesn't admit it & see if the voters support him.


This line is repeated so often inside here that it begs for me to repeat my same question.  Tell me what President Obama has done, Socialist wise, that is any different than what a President Bill Clinton or a President Hillary Clinton would have done if they were in office.  If one is unable to name a distinction, then the Socialist label is either an extremely unfair one or you believe all Democrats are Socialist. If it's the latter, then I have to question why this President has been singled out for criticism.


Mr. Dewey, President Obama is a stubborn progressive idiolog.  Bill Clinton was a practical Centrist that was able to be flexible enough to work across the isle.  Welfare reform, balanced budget, bipartisanship, flexibility, understanding of and support for small business.  Do you remember or have you possibly read about Clinton's 1996 State of the Union address when he said "The Era of Big Government is over"?  They are night and day.  If you ask for more specifics and detailed links, you will have to find them yourself.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #35 
slideby - I still see no policy differences between the two men but rather your opinion regarding their difference in approach.  Both wanted national health insurance programs and I suspect President Clinton would have supported TARP and saving GM.  If you think otherwise, you should have used these as examples to support such a belief.  President Obama has cut small business taxes many times.  Clinton raised income taxes and Obama hasn't.  I'm still looking for one piece of legislation, or policy example, this President pushed that the Clinton's would never have signed on to.
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 5,045
Reply with quote  #36 

The founding fathers believed that the long term welfare of our nation is best served by an informed, invested electorate....therefore only white male land owners or the wealthy could vote. Over time it had been determined that anyone should be able to vote. This extension of voting rights to anyone and everyone has led to a huge block of people voting on emotion and only for their immediate gratification, as opposed to what best serves the country and even themselves in the long run.

And the founding fathers weren't perfect. Some were slave owners and north and south had to skip dealing with slavery or the constitution never would get done. The 3/5 vote was a compromise. Southern states wanted slaves counted so they could have more rep in congress and northern states wanted majority (not 2/3 vote) to pass federal commerce regulations. Morality took a backseat to getting it done.

Most of the founding fathers disdained the idea of political parties since factions worked against the public interest. Yet as soon as we got independence they seperated into factions themselves. You also had pro england and anti england. George washington was independent. Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton had bold plans to establish the national credit and build a financially powerful nation, and formed the basis of the Federalist Party. He advocated a strong federal government and monetary system. He built support from bankers and businessmen, eventually forming the Federalist party. Secretary of the State Thomas Jefferson strenuously opposed Hamilton's agenda. He believed the federal government should be strong on foreign policy but largely hands-off and restrained on domestic matters, leaving the states to manage their own affairs. He formed the democrat-republican party. The founders were divided as was the country. Jefferson left his office, washington never spoke to him again because of it, jefferson publically hated hamilton. Country just beginning and the founding fathers and polititians divided by political party and ideaology and it was nasty and hateful from DAY 1.

The system of checks and balances embodied in the Constitution was a result of these factions despising and mistrusting each other, fearing the worst if the other side prevailed in a system that gave them too much power. Both sides ripped the other as wrong  and harmful to the country.
The founding fathers argued, slandered and did the same things done today...except without our social media and technology.



__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #37 
The founders wanted only people that were educated and had a vested interest, like being a land owner, to be able to vote.  So that politicians would be less able to buy votes with things like welfare etc...They not only didnt trust each other, they had seen and learned from England that they did not want a big central govt and church.  They wanted more freedom for the people in religion and from govt so people could control their own destiny and not be forever stuck in a cast system.

I dont recall anything being mentioned about race, etc... I do believe there were even black businessmen that helped formulate alot in the founding documents.  


__________________
Susan
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #38 
Why do libs go straight to racism, sexism, etc...?

By the way dinger I could have voted because I am an educated land owner.

__________________
Susan
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 5,045
Reply with quote  #39 
Women were not allowed to vote. There were women land owners and rich ones (because husbands died in war, inheritance, etc) but they were still not allowed to vote. If a woman married all her property became her husbands.
A married women back then owned no property--her husband did. Women did not get increased rights or pivledges after the revolution. They were still second class citizens. One step behind poor white males but just above blacks, and "indians".

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
slideby - I still see no policy differences between the two men but rather your opinion regarding their difference in approach.  Both wanted national health insurance programs and I suspect President Clinton would have supported TARP and saving GM.  If you think otherwise, you should have used these as examples to support such a belief.  President Obama has cut small business taxes many times.  Clinton raised income taxes and Obama hasn't.  I'm still looking for one piece of legislation, or policy example, this President pushed that the Clinton's would never have signed on to.


Mr. Dewey,

I choose to use the examples I choose to use. The fact that you don't like them is your problem.  The approach ultimately influences/dictates the resultant policy.  As far as your suggestion that both wanted national healthcare, Clinton was smart enough to back off and not shove it down the throat of Americans, and worse yet, using questionable methods.  Just because you suspect Clinton would have supported tarp and the GM bail out, is just that, your opinion.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by slideby7
  Just because you suspect Clinton would have supported tarp and the GM bail out, is just that, your opinion.


slideby - True...and I wanted to know yours.  If you think not, then I might understand why you feel one is a Socialist and one isn't.  You suggesting Obama is a Socialist, is just that, your opinion. 
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,058
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
You suggesting Obama is a Socialist, is just that, your opinion. 

And one that is pretty widely held.
slideby7

Registered:
Posts: 818
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by slideby7
  Just because you suspect Clinton would have supported tarp and the GM bail out, is just that, your opinion.


slideby - True...and I wanted to know yours.  If you think not, then I might understand why you feel one is a Socialist and one isn't.  You suggesting Obama is a Socialist, is just that, your opinion. 


Mr. Dewey. I did not, I repeat, did not say I feel the President is a Socialist.  Further, tearing a page from your book, you didn't come close to responding to my post.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,780
Reply with quote  #44 
Red team blue team
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.