It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has Hillary already won the presidency in 2008?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12 12 2012
I good group of people to ask would be the John Titor supporters, or better yet the time-traveler himself.
All kidding aside the 2008 election is just 3 years away and don't think there is any way in hell they could make her electable if they had 30 years, let alone just 3!

[edit on 21-9-2005 by 12 12 2012]


Well if she runs aganist condi she is a shoe in. What would the country rather have. A black conserative or a whilte liberal.




posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Are you beginning to see why they created the feminist movement? It wasn't just to bring women out of bondage and on equal footing with men, it was also to ripen society for a female presidential candidate. Have you seen the role reversals in society now. Women in powerful corporate positions and pulling most of the weight finacially and the man is the stay home mom. I dont have a problem with women being treated equally and being respected but to put them into goddess status. Man takes on the traditional role as female (the emasculated man) and Woman takes on the traditional role of (the masculine male).

You say I am afraid of strong women and chaeuvanistic? Quite the contrary. I always saw women as very poweful and to be honored just being a mom and raising the kids.

The feminist movement never freed women and those that think it did are in an illusory world.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
personally, i'd like to see barbara dole run...now there's a woman who knows what she's about!


Who the hell is Barbara Dole and what are you talking about?


Originally posted by SIRR1
I would like to see Elizabeth Dole run against Hillary Clinton.


I'd just like to see Elizabeth Dole run. From me.

On topic, many believed a vote for Bush '04 was a vote for Hillary '08. The only thing that could have stopped her was Kerry winning. Enjoy.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
The feminist movement never freed women and those that think it did are in an illusory world.


You just said women have taken over the world and men are their slaves (basically) then ended with that. Which is it? Are they free or not? Slaves and your master? Make sense out of the Limbaugh feminazi conspiracy stuff for me. I'm not high enough to understand that level of paranoia.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by magnito_student
The feminist movement never freed women and those that think it did are in an illusory world.


You just said women have taken over the world and men are their slaves (basically) then ended with that. Which is it? Are they free or not? Slaves and your master? Make sense out of the Limbaugh feminazi conspiracy stuff for me. I'm not high enough to understand that level of paranoia.


I apologize my paranoid schizophrenic level of enlightenment is out of your reach of comprehension. Give it a little time and you will see for yourself.

Here, have a tinfoil hat. I manufacture the best ones on the market.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Yeah okay, I'll wait. Never had an answer yet. The usual punchline is something like...

Motherhood is freedom, or it takes a strong woman to be under a man's thumb, or Housewivery is the greatest accomplishment femininekind can achieve without upsetting the delicate balance of testosterone that runs the war effort.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I still don't get it. Why is Hilary Clinton so evil? Is it because she's a democrat? Or a woman? Is it because she's successful & intelligent?

Yes she's a politician but all politicans are power-crazed. Don't trust any of them - they will lie and cheat and swindle their way into office. Just hope and pray that the man/woman who finally gets in will have some semblance of sanity/competance and isn't an alcoholic. The rest will all go wrong, even if they started out with noble intentions. Unfortunately, corruption comes with the nature of politics.

Oh I forget I'm sorry she's in league with the Illuminati. She'd be a mason too if it wasn't for the fact that she's a woman. And she didn't go to Yale so she can't be Skull & Bones. No matter, she's still NWO. In any case, surely the term NWO is incorrect? It's been in control so long now, surely it is Old World Order? Just a thought.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
My political science professor is a big hillary fan. The other day he was singing her praises and says
"If she runs and loses, it won't be because she's a woman."
I promptly replied
"It'll be because she's a MAN."

Hillary, for the most part, will only galvanize the democratic party in the states that they already have on lock. In the swing states, it's just going to make the Republicans turn out to vote against her.

If Hillary ran, as long as she didn't run against Cheney or Rumsfeld, she'd lose, but I think a lot of people would only be voting Republican to keep her out, so you could expect the Republicans to lose the senate and maybe even the house (if they haven't already done that by 2008).

I think the Democrats might be wise to run John Edwards. There's something at least mildly Kennedyesque about that man. He needs to run quiet and intellient, no more of this screaming and waving your hands around that the Democrats have been telling Al Gore and Howard Dean to do- people make fun of you for that. If Edwards stands up straight, speaks slowly and firmly, and has plenty of good one-liners ready for the debates, he's just the guy to mop the floor with your standard issue 60-something Republican bureaucrat.


I'll tell you another thing, if hillary doesn't win the Democratic Primary, 2008 could be the first year in modern times that a third party carried states. (I'm not completely sure, but I think that populists and possibly the anti-masons carried states in their hey-day, so i dont think this would be the first time ever).
This is the perfect time for Ross Perot or somebody like him to step up to the plate with a moderate conservative domestic agenda and a compromise strategy on getting out of Iraq, and say "Vote you god dang conscience and we can really win this."
Of course a third party can't really win, but if they can garner the signitures to get on the ballot in every state and make a good show they'll be firing a real shot across the Republican's bow, and since getting a certain percent of the vote gets you back on the ballot for next time, it would force the Republicans to adopt that third parties agenda to save themselves from losing 2012.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
As I see it, it doesn't matter who becomes president. They're all bought and paid for.
Nowadays you must be a corrupt rich corporate whore to become president, you need lots of contacts with corporations and other super rich people, because you need lots of money to run a effective propaganda campaign.
I bet the next US president will be a democrat, just to "calm the waters." Possibly even female.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Why is she so evil? She's a liberal! If she comes into power Gays will be given the right to vote, go out into the world without fear of a republican beating them and dragging them to death, or even worse, the right to marry!

If she gets in power women may be given the right to vote, leave the house without the husband holding her on a leash, or even worse the right to decide if they want to have a kid or not!

If Hillary comes into power we might stop invading countries for oil, bombing brown people and saying it's ok, they brown, or even worse might use diplomacy to solve problems instead of just spending a trillion dollars to bomb a craphole country!

See how evil she is, the anti-republican if I ever saw one.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Why is she so evil? She's a liberal!


Who said she's evil? All I said is that Republicans have a serious antipathy for her and will turn out in large numbers to deny her the oval office.

If you press me, you'll find that I'm not a fan, but I wouldn't say she's evil. The phrase I'd use starts with "raving" and ends with something that rhymes with Stitch.


If she comes into power Gays will be given the right to vote, go out into the world without fear of a republican beating them and dragging them to death, or even worse,


Um, they already can vote, and i believe a poll would reveal that 99% of them aren't the least bit worried about Republican attacks. I know you're not serious... but that's just silly.
Besides, that's not why conservatives hate her. I used to be a Republican, and I still am a conservative, so I can explain it for you. Conservatives get nervous about vehement idealogues. We're not against women, minorities, etc, but many of us are against affirmative action and other such entitlement programs which indefinately establish unequal standards under the guise of correcting past wrongs, but never seem to actually even the playingfield- only keep radicals in power as long as they keep the handouts flowing.
I speak primarily for myself, but I believe many conservatives would agree. I don't fear the idea of a Hillary Clinton administration because she would be pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-woman, pro minority, etc. My view of what would happen is almost the polar opposite infact. I fear that the Hillary Clinton Administartion would utterly fail to serve the greatest interests of those groups while providing them with a myriad of unfair privlidges and advantages which come at the detriment of others.

For example, my mother has been in and out of abusive relationship after abusive relationship over the past decade. Again and again I've seen her lose property, lose jobs, have her life threatened, and for a brief time be driven to drugs by it all. I would like to think that makes my views on women's rights rather well informed ones, at least in certain facets of the issue. The police do not take domestic violence seriously, a woman who cannot afford a decent lawyer can expect to be screwed over in court, and there is not adequate access to any kind of emotional help.

I can scarcely imagine how any issue facing women could be too much more important than the fact that a 350 pound man can hold a woman hostage at gunpoint and order her to call her sons and ex husband so that he can shoot them, and that man not only remains at large, but enforcement of the restraining order is lax and the ensuing divorce is decided very favorably for the man in question.

Do I think Hillary Clinton will bring any meaningful change in such areas? Almost definately not. I expect her to very strongly advocate the right of women to be sexually irresponsible and retain full rights to unilaterally relieve themselves of the consequences, while at the same time cracking down on men who would behave in similar fashion by seeing to it that they never have any say in the fate of the child they helped create, by seeing to it that they end up financially liable to the child, if born, to a disproportionate degree from the mother, etc etc. Fine, I'm not stupid enough to put myself on the wrong end of such situations, but that does not mean that I'm not against a politician who I believe would do an excellent job of giving women financial fringe benefits and leverage over the men in their lives but never solve the deeper problems which I have seen take such a heavy toll on women such as my mother and my ex-fiance (at the hands of her new husband- not me).

Similar situations play out with minorities: I think education, protection from violence, and aggressive crackdowns on discriminatory hiring practices are the answer, in conjunction with programs to open their eyes to opportunities which they can seize for themselves. I think that instead of those things, they will get a token bonus to their score in college admission considerations, plenty of kind words, and maybe more lenient treatment in the criminal justice system, which they would never find themselves at the mercy of to begin with if the things I consider imporant were taken care of so that they had better alternatives.

In short, the problem that I, and quite possibly many other conservatives, have with radical left idealogues like Hillary is not that we hate the people they will help. It's that we think they will do us injustice for the sake of enacting soluations that won't solve the deepest problems of the groups in question, and we don't want our tax dollars spent or our lives interfered with for anything that isn't going to bring progress.

Now I could be wrong. I have not gazed into Hillary Clinton's soul. Perhaps she would be a brilliant reformer with the power to save the equal rights movements from the injustices which I have referred to. If she can show that to us, my view will change- if there wasn't a really good conservative I might even vote for that kind of Hillary. But show me. All I've seen from her so far is run of the mill radicalism, being toned down lately in hopes that I'll forget what I've heard from her in time for the election. All I've seen of Hillary Clinton is a woman, if I recall correctly, calls the Secret Service "her personal trained pigs" and calls Marines "dangerous extremists in funny uniforms" (she says that like it's a bad thing... what does she want, Harmless Marines?) In the interest of fairness, I'm only half certain that the marine thing was from Hillary- it was from some woman associated with Bill Clinton though.


If Hillary comes into power we might stop invading countries for oil, bombing brown people and saying it's ok, they brown, or even worse might use diplomacy to solve problems instead of just spending a trillion dollars to bomb a craphole country!


If you really believe that one I've got a bridge to sell you. Unless I'm mistaken, Clinton deployed more troops into action and dropped more bombs than 3 of the 4 previous presidents COMBINED (Bush 41 being the obvious exception- But what did Reagan, Carter, and Ford have to their credit? Granada, the Mayaguez Incident, and the failed Iran embassy rescue?) Clinton took us to Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda, multiple bombings of Iraq, missiles at Sudan, etc etc etc.

Let's not kid ourselves, both American parties bow to the same masters- the business interests- the military industrial complex (and in Bill Clinton's case, add China). The Republicans wave the illegal-immigrant boogieman in our face, but they wont close the border. Democrats love to shout about imperialism, but they were into it every bit as much- Ethiopia is a colony in all but name- they're growing coffee for our fat @$$es when they should be growing food, because we tollerate the fat-cats over there who own the land and look out for their interests, people be danged. Do you think that started in 2001? Guess again.

These two parties only differ in their approach to violating our constitutional rights. The federal government does not have the right to ban abortion, nor does it have the right to legalize it. That is a state's rights issue because it does not respect interstate commerce or any other facet of government which the constitution empowers the federal government to preside over. One of them wants to violate the constituion in one direction, the other wants to violate it in the opposite. And so it is on a whole host of issues.

Bash the parties to hell and gone- I'll stand up and cheer. Let's just not get under the illusion that either one of them is worthy of our respect, or would be worthy of our support if only a third option existed.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
well this is my view.

I am a democrat. Okay call me what-ever you want. I don't want hillary, but I would like to see another choice for the democratic party.


Hmm... what was it the DrHoracid used to call you guys? Demon-crats I think? Just kidding. I see the Republicrat oligarchy as a single entity, so I don't normally single either out for petty name calling, except strictly in jest.


Bush is doing bad. Very bad.

Wow, you democrats are starting to sound like a lot of Republicans I know (or is it vice versa?). The only difference between a Republican criticizing Bush and a Democrat doing it, in my neck of the woods, is that Republicans preface their criticism "well, I voted for him again because he's a christian, but..." So no real dispute there.


He (and terminator) have made some of the dumbest laws I've seen in a long time.

Is it just me, or do people call him that because his name is so dang hard to spell? Personally I think we should call him after one of his roles which fits his governing style better- considering the battle with teachers, I recommend "The Kindergarten Cop".


He just made a new one, something like translated into American: You can't sue ANY gun companies,


In all fairness, I think that's a reasonable law. If I kill you with any other piece of sporting equipment, you would not sue the manufacturer, would you? Of course the counter argument holds that since weapons are designed for a dual-role which explicitly includes killing in addition to sport, that is a false analogy. That claim does not hold water however because the lethal purpose of weapons is for legal self defense, and therefore criminal use of a firearm is still a mis-application by the owner for which the manufacturer should not be liable.
We don't need to make millionaires out of a few victims in an attempt to bankrupt manufacturers who provide a legal product. What we need is to get illegally owned and illegally carried weapons out of our society by training and equipping police for the task and putting the people who supply and carry and use those weapons either behind bars or under a headstone.


No quarrel on the other legislation you named though. The Republicans have made serious mistakes and far be it from me to defend legislation which is hurting the American people or squandering money on non-answers to serious problems.


Republicans blame Democrats for doing nothing when in office, but when Republicans are in office, they have quick attacks at the Constitution,


Both sides do that. Also, neither side really gets anything progressive done in office. 8 years of Clinton, 2 of them with a friendly congress and where is the turn-around in our education system? 5 years of Bush, all of them with a friendly congress, and same thing, where is the turn-around in our education system? All I see is a series of standardized tests which a large number of students can't pass- the teachers are working so hard just to make sure that these kids can fill in the right bubble to avoid being held back that they can't really help the more advanced students make any progress, and they certainly can't slow down enough to teach the challenged students effective learning strategies.
The lack of progress in education is really an excellent example of what has gone on in many social areas for the last 13+ years, and really even longer than that, although Bush and Clinton and the congresses which they have worked with are really the poster children for stagnant government. The only progress we've really made is that we're getting REALLY REALLY good at blowing stuff up overseas.


Like they need to make every single stupid law to make rich people richer, before the world ends. At least if hillary was pres, She might be able to balance the budget on medical care, the war, and the economy in general.


She might- what's her plan. I haven't heard her talk about it. What few times I've heard her speak, it's been bad stuff about Republicans, from the vast right wing conspiracy to a couple of tirades against Bush.
If I had a magic lamp, right after I'd wished for a million dollars and a date with Mary Carrey, I'd wish for both parties and their candidates, including Hillary, to come out, present their ideas in detail, and campaign on the merits of their ideas, not on vague declarations of "support" for this or that, or on criticism of the other guy.

What is Hillary's plan for balancing the budget, providing medical care, and at the same time lifting the economy? Dare I guess that it will involve a hefty tax increase at a time when fuel prices are already putting the pinch on some employers? I've got a little inside info for you from the asphalt industry- Asphalt plants run on natural gas, which is expected to climb 75%. If that goes much further, Asphalt will cost as much as concrete, and the asphalt industry will D-I-E. I'd be shocked if that's the only industry in dire straights if fuel prices continue to climb. We need an energy plan and we need to do it without big tax increases, because if we don't the economy is going to shrink, people are going to lose their employer provided insurance, tax revenues will shrink, and all three problems we've named will get worse.



Why do Republicans hate Doctors? They are also very random. No seriously I think they hate doctors because doctors actually EARN their money. They do not get it from Daddy or Mommy. I can guarantee you that (unless they are very smart, very unlikely) Republicans get all their money from their parents, who have either robbed a bank, won the lottery, or inherited it from a person they killed.


Roughly 50% of the voters in this country are living off of mommy and daddy? That kind of stuff just discredits your whole argument. Aren't we leaving out small business owners, high-earning tradesmen such as carpenters, operating engineers, electricians, etc? I'm a union man- I work with a lot of union men. Our unions lean left, but I've never met a Democrat on a jobsite, and we talked politics quite a bit. Then what about the troops? I was a Marine. You don't meet a lot of democrats in the Marine Corps. Now, as fate would have it, I've lost a lot of respect for the two party system and for the Republicans who I used to support, so I'm not entirely closed to your point, but your point is discredited by some of this partisan vitriol which simply can not be taken seriously.

The democrats probably should get a shot right about now, because the Republicans have had eight years and they've blown it, although i won't know how I'm voting until I've seen the candidates and heard them speak on the issues- I sort of suspect that I'll end up voting 3rd party in protest if neither side puts forward somebody I beleive in. I'm with you at least as far as that. The democrats aren't "evil"- I don't see any good reason, religious or otherwise, that anyone, even a fundementalist christian, is morally obligated to vote against the democrats. The democrats are basically on an equal footing with the Republicans in most respects- their right as often and wrong as often.

All of that I can grant you. I'm just not prepared to go over the edge and say "the Republicans are so horrible that I've dying to vote Hillary no matter what, because maybe she'll do better. If I wanted a maybe I'd go into the polling place uninformed and do the "eenie meenie minnie moe" thing. I don't want a maybe though- I want to be reasonably assured by my own critical thinking on the matter that I have found a candidate who best represents what I think America needs.


Thats the main reason why I am a Democrat. Its because they are less evil then Republicans, They are somewhat fair, they don't attack peoples rights or the constitution, and they are not racist or religionist.


They're as evil as the Republicans.

Being treated "somewhat fair" is a lot like being "somewhat not shot"- your shot or your not and you're treated fair or you're not- the Democrats are as unfair as Republicans, just in the opposite direction.


The Democrats do attack the constitution and the people's rights. They attack the 2nd amendment and they have waged an all-out war on the 10th. Until the Bush years took their turn for the surreal in late 2001, Democrats were THE party of big government, and they're still A party of big government. They push the powers of the federal government into areas where it has no constitutional grounds. Where exactly did the Federal Courts derive the authority to rule on matters which the federal government is not able to legislate on? Just for example, (and ironically enough, I am for abortion, with certain reservations) if abortion laws don't fall under the scope of the enumerated powers (keeping in mind that the necessary and proper clause reads "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."- so it's not a blank check), and even moreso if the implications of the 11th amendment are taken as exempting state rights from the review of the government, then judicial review of state laws on matters where the federal government does not share authority probably is limited to state supreme courts, making Roe v. Wade a probable violation of the 10th and 11th amendments.

And if they aren't racist, I'm just dying to know why they've made it their stock in trade to legislate unfair advantages to minorities at the detriment of whites which have made virtually no progress in correcting the social problems facing minorities, but have done a stand-up job of creating a black voting block for the Democratic party to rely on. When I watch the Democrats deal with minorities, I see lip service, I see lies, and I see an utter failure to stand up and be counted on the issues where minorities need them most. I see a bunch of lame old rich white men, not very dissimilar from Republicans, who aspire to make Uncle Tom's out of minority voters by throwing them a couple of minor bones here and there. I see a party that is long over-due to be robbed of minority support, if only would actually stand up for them on the imporant issues and give minorities a better option. Not racist my butt. When you lie to somebody, use them, and allow their future to be undermined, that is a dead giveaway that you don't respect them. When the groups that you don't respect are defined by the color of their skin, that's racism. By that definition, I don't think either party could really dodge the claim that they are racist.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Okay take Condelezza (spelling?) Rice. HUGE CONTRADICTION. A black conservative. That completely contradicts itself. Got to be conspiracy. If she is an african-american conservative, why haven't pigs started flying? Okay The side of conservative/republicans do not like anything but white christians. I personally think Bush and Co hired her to get the african-americans to vote for him. she's a puppet for him.

I also despise that Republicans hate people (like gays) because they don't follow the Bible. We're talking poltics not religion. I think that they can be any religion they want but in the bill of rights it claims that this country shall have no one religon or something like that. People vote republican because they are selfish. They want everything their way. Money, Religion, whatver you name it they want to play by their own rules.

I'm glad Vagabond that you are a union man, because at least you are working for money. Thats something I can accept. But when your the owner of IBM your just either:

Letting the money roll in and basically doing nothing

Inheriting the position from your father and their father and so on

That is probably the most controversial topic. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thats really what politics are. Of course they are other things like peoples rights, but that (rich get richer...) has always been in our country.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
Okay take Condelezza (spelling?) Rice. HUGE CONTRADICTION. A black conservative. That completely contradicts itself. Got to be conspiracy. If she is an african-american conservative, why haven't pigs started flying?
Okay The side of conservative/republicans do not like anything but white christians.


I'd love to see you support that one. Where is it written that an African American can't be in favor of a party which (up until recently) was for fiscal responsibility and small government? Are you suggesting that blacks need handouts from big government and lowered standards of performance in schools because they couldn't compete on an equal footing? Or is it less about fiscal policy and more about social policy? Perhaps you feel that blacks are genetically prone to sexual promiscuity and therefore couldn't possibly be against abortion?
It seems to me that if Republicans would reach back to their history as the party of Lincoln and make new moves to elevate the opportunities afforded to minorities, for example by improving the education system, cracking down on drug imports and illegal gun distribution and carrying to make minority neighborhoods a decent place to raise children, they would find that many minority voters can identify with conservative issues but simply could not bring themselves to vote for a party which hadn't done anything important for them lately.


I also despise that Republicans hate people (like gays) because they don't follow the Bible. We're talking poltics not religion.


I have a major problem with legislating morality for morality sake as well. I believe the Republicans are wrong not to compromise on gay marriage- I think the religious institution of marriage needs to be separated from government benefits which have nothing to do with the ring on your finger but everything to do with cohabitation and the raising of children.
That being said, it is important to realize that the conservative side of this issue is not driven strictly by hate (remember I'm speaking from past experience here as a former Republican and former Baptist) but is driven by a belief that certain principles which happen to be religious in origin are also sound principles for the government of society. The ideas are religious, but if there good to the public is derived from the idea then it can still be adopted by a secular government. Thou shall not commit murder is one of the ten commandments- why do Republicans hate murderers? It's not a matter of hate, it's a matter of them believing (the fact that they're probably wrong in large part has nothing to do with it) that gay marriage would be detrimental to society.


People vote republican because they are selfish.

Remove the word Republican and that is a plainly obvious statement. People vote because they are selfish. The whole point of voting is to try and get things done your way, because you believe your way is the best way, or at least the best way for you. Democrats do the same thing. Independents do too.


I'm glad Vagabond that you are a union man, because at least you are working for money. Thats something I can accept. But when your the owner of IBM your just either:

Letting the money roll in and basically doing nothing


Doing nothing at all... except for putting together a sound business plan, seeking out people to provide venture capital, managing that money wisely to create jobs and provide a good for purchase which benefits the economy, making decisions on a regular basis which could will either bring you wealth and create more jobs, or if you choose badly bankrupt you and put thousands of people out of work. That's doing nothing? It's not like Bill Gates was walking down the street one day, found a copy of Windows 95 laying in the gutter, picked it up and started selling it at an astronomical price. He took a big risk with his future to create something and build a company around it, and a lot of people have ended up with highly paid technical jobs because of that who would otherwise have ended up repairing TVs for a living.



That is probably the most controversial topic. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thats really what politics are. Of course they are other things like peoples rights, but that (rich get richer...) has always been in our country.


That part is very true. Shall we examine the reasons? Boy, this is going to be an unpleasant one for everyone here who loves one political party or another:
1. Illegal immigration depresses wages. The Democrats welcome them with open arms and in California are fighting to give them drivers licenses and exempt them from vehicle towing if they should drive without licenses, registration, or insurance. The Republicans talk a good fight but aren't doing the first serious thing to stop the problem, which is odd since they keep telling us how dangerous that wide open border is.
2. From NAFTA, to "most favored nation" status for China, and even an order for army berets from China, both parties have welcome the export of American jobs with open arms. Sure it screws the citizens, but it raises revenues for the companies, which inturn raises tax revenues, which gives the government more money to over-spend on contracts for those same large companies.
3. The powers that be on either side seem intent on keeping this a "renter society" despite all of Bush's flapping his gums about an "ownership society". The democrats usually target their help to low, the Republicans target it too high. If you're making between 20 and 40 grand (keeping in mind that I'm a Californian and everything is more expensive than it may be in your neck of the woods), odds are you can't expect any significant share of the assistance the government is doling out- on the contrary, you'll be paying a good 20%+ out of your income to help FUND those handouts. So much for owning your home anytime soon. If you purchase your home when you're 30, you may well be retired by the time you've got it paid off, and of course the less you make the longer the loan has to be, which means more interest and less chance of the common man being able to pass real assets to his children in order to elevate the family over time. Both sides have got their tax policy wrong, not only in where they target the breaks but in how much they spend, and consequently how much they tax. No matter which party you're for, they've got a hand in your left pocket yankin' your chain and a hand in your right pocket stealin' your wallet.

And of course there are other reasons, but I've got this pesky termpaper due tomorrow.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Vagabond, I would reply with my statement but a certain MOD does not want me to. It seems I posted something poltical on this thread and he is blaming me. (don't worry its not you)

Considering your a lot older than me I can only understand about 3/4 of what your saying. (probably the tax part cause I don't have to pay em yet)

I live in california also. Also by the way the republicans back in the 1700's were actually what the Democrats are now, and the present day republicans formed a new party. but me and my friend always fight about if it was actually the fedaralists are the Republicans now.

If you want to keep talking about politics you need to make a new thread because a MOD is not happy with me posting politics on this thread.

I also think this:

Okay seemingly 'small' buisnesses ( like IBM? Is that really that small? LOL) Have only one owner but have many employees. Now, why do the employees support their own bosses poltical views? Cause they want to keep their boss in business? I dunno just a thought.

No why do the Republican party hate doctors? seriously. why? Terminix hates them because? Also why do they not like education? He (Terminix) took 2 million dollars from schools and didn't pay it back. Why was he asking the school for money in the first place? I don't know. Isn't he a katrillionaire.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
Vagabond, I would reply with my statement but a certain MOD does not want me to. It seems I posted something poltical on this thread and he is blaming me. (don't worry its not you)


The title of the thread is "Has Hillary already won the presidency in 2008". If that's not politics, I don't know what is. The off topic complaint may apply here though.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
I live in california also. Also by the way the republicans back in the 1700's were actually what the Democrats are now, and the present day republicans formed a new party. but me and my friend always fight about if it was actually the fedaralists are the Republicans now.


I would take this a step farther and say that the republican party of today is the democrat party of 30-40 years ago. The entire country has moved left, with the exception of the radical right which is NOT the current republican party although some would disagree with this statement.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06Okay seemingly 'small' buisnesses ( like IBM? Is that really that small? LOL) Have only one owner but have many employees. Now, why do the employees support their own bosses poltical views? Cause they want to keep their boss in business? I dunno just a thought.


I don't get what you're talking about here. Do you know people who base their political views on what their boss believes? In my workplace, there are people on both sides of the spectrum and many in between.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06No why do the Republican party hate doctors? seriously. why?


Facts would disagree with you on this one. The issue of tort reform was discussed in great detail in the 2004 election cycle. The republican party is for it, the democrat party is against it. You mentioned you are young, so I'll explain, if you already know this, just skip this section, no offense is intended.
The goal of tort reform is basically to limit "pain and suffering" and malpractice lawsuits to a specific dollar amount. Without tort reform, an injured person can sue a doctor for malpractice and literally win millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. To defend against this, doctors purchase malpractice insurance which not only costs TONS of money, but is increasing at a rate of about 25% per year. These high costs are putting many doctors out of business and those that stay in business must drastically increase prices to be profitable. This in turn raises insurance costs as insurance companies try to remain profitable. Which in turn raises our out of pocket costs for insurance.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06Also why do they not like education? He (Terminix) took 2 million dollars from schools and didn't pay it back. Why was he asking the school for money in the first place? I don't know. Isn't he a katrillionaire.


Can you provide a source for this information? The only recent news I could find regarding Arnold and education is that he increased the education budget for california by $252 million. Source: www.nctimes.com... xt I certainly don't claim to be an expert on California news though, I'm from Pennsylvania.

Personally though, I would like to see the public education system in the US privatized. Children who go to private school (or are home schooled) typically outscore publicly educated children. Government programs are typically too large, corrupt, and inefficient. The money the US is currently spending on education could be much better spent either funding private schools directly or providing vouchers to ALL children

Now then, to address the subject of this thread, so that I'm not completely off topic...

Hillary is unelectable in my opinion. The republicans will dig up SO much dirt on her that she will never make it out of the primaries. Heck, that scene a few years ago where she yelled something to the effect of "put my uterus in a lockbox and keep your hands off!" is more than enough to shut down her run to the Presidency. Remember what happened to Howard Dean after his little outburst last year?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
Vagabond, I would reply with my statement but a certain MOD does not want me to. It seems I posted something poltical on this thread and he is blaming me. (don't worry its not you)


I feel that I share the blame for this. I have usually been a pretty big advocate of keeping politics in PTS- I love that place. I should have started another thread for us several posts ago. That is what I will be doing now if you would like to continue the discussion.


Considering your a lot older than me I can only understand about 3/4 of what your saying. (probably the tax part cause I don't have to pay em yet)


So what you're saying is that essoteric verbosity creates conversational ennui? (that's actually a news ticker line from SimCity3000- I don't talk like that.) I appologize if I'm sometimes a little obtuse, I do tend to get carried away and maybe even show off.

I'll edit a link into here momentarily.
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-10-2005 by The Vagabond]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join