login
School me on Hilary Clinton (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2015-07-24 4:51 PM in reply to: mrbbrad |
Buttercup  14334    |  Subject: RE: School me on Hilary ClintonPeople like her because: - She's got brass balls. - She's been attacked, assailed, condemned, and vilified for decades and yet she goes cheerfully about her work. - Rarely do you hear her resorting to the same kind of attacks as the legions who despair of her existence - I call that equanimity and I like it in a person. - EVERYBODY has/had an opinion of how she should manage her marriage; she chose HER path with apology to no one. Mind yer own business. - She has made her entire adult life about serving the public; there's something to be said for that. - I don't hear demagoguery coming out of her mouth; I appreciate that in a politician. - She put up with Bill's caca without whining about being a victim, unlike, say, Mark Sanford's wife. She owed no explanation to anyone and she didn't try to manipulate the public in the process. - She's fairly moderate; progressives distrust her quite a bit. - Her heart's in the right place. - She is a policy wonk; she knows her stuff. I would say she's smarter than the average bear. - She obviously adores her daughter; she gets points for being a good mom. I don't keep up with her accomplishments, but I remember that while she was FLOTUS she was very instrumental in helping to get the SCHIP passed and funded. The howling from the right, and some on the left, was non-stop; as FLOTUS she should know her place and it wasn't in politics! I liked her gumption. She didn't ask for their permission; she was going to use her position to advance the social causes near and dear to her heart. I was disappointed when, as Senator, she voted for the Iraq war. I thought she was a good Secretary of State. I think the kind of non-stop social persecution that she has lived through would have grinded me down long ago; she seems cheerfully indifferent to her critics. Good for her and her strong backbone. |
| 2015-07-28 1:20 PM in reply to: jennifer_runs |
Champion 11989   Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton For me It has nothing to do with her gender. It's because she has been anointed the Democratic front runner for years now and I see no reason for it. |
| 2015-07-28 1:38 PM in reply to: morey000 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by morey000 Originally posted by MikeinGR Dr Ben Carson That is it people Only person who is not a politician in this thing ... So, you're specifically voting for a person that has no political accomplishments. I concede he is a better brain surgeon than any of the others, but I'm not sure how helpful that is when you need a leader, with a vision who can motivate a country to move. I have a problem with voting for a 'climate change denier'. among other things, I kinda' like earth. I find that an endearing quality. Somebody who doesn't blindly follow politically motivated science.
|
| 2015-08-13 3:09 AM in reply to: mrbbrad |
| 108 | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by mrbbrad What has she actually done? I seriously have no idea why she is so popular. Will someone who supports her please list her major accomplishments that make her a legitimate candidate? saw this elsewhere today and thought of this thread. it about clears it up. Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014 - “My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.” |
| 2015-08-13 6:22 AM in reply to: Dutchcrush |
Expert 1183 Fort Wayne, IN | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by Dutchcrush Originally posted by mrbbrad What has she actually done? I seriously have no idea why she is so popular. Will someone who supports her please list her major accomplishments that make her a legitimate candidate? saw this elsewhere today and thought of this thread. it about clears it up. Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014 - “My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.” Wow. Can I get her to write my performance appraisal at work? |
| 2015-08-13 7:40 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by Dutchcrush Originally posted by mrbbrad What has she actually done? I seriously have no idea why she is so popular. Will someone who supports her please list her major accomplishments that make her a legitimate candidate? saw this elsewhere today and thought of this thread. it about clears it up. Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014 - “My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.” Urban myth. "It's doubtful that Hillary Clinton made such a statement, however. None of the numerous reproductions of this quote we've found on the Internet makes any mention of whom Hillary Clinton was speaking to when she allegedly said it or identifies the specifics of the setting in which it was supposedly uttered. (Where did this event take place? Was it a speech or an interview? Who asked her the question? What else did Hillary say on that occasion?) We've also found no record of Clinton's having engaged in any public appearance or interview on 11 March 2014 during which she might have said what is attributed to her, nor any news account or transcript that references such a quote (from that date or at any other time). As well, the quoted words apparently didn't begin showing up on the Internet until months after they were supposedly spoken, rather than immediately afterwards." http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/achievements.asp Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2015-08-13 7:41 AM |
| 2015-08-13 10:29 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Dutchcrush Urban myth. "It's doubtful that Hillary Clinton made such a statement, however. None of the numerous reproductions of this quote we've found on the Internet makes any mention of whom Hillary Clinton was speaking to when she allegedly said it or identifies the specifics of the setting in which it was supposedly uttered. (Where did this event take place? Was it a speech or an interview? Who asked her the question? What else did Hillary say on that occasion?) We've also found no record of Clinton's having engaged in any public appearance or interview on 11 March 2014 during which she might have said what is attributed to her, nor any news account or transcript that references such a quote (from that date or at any other time). As well, the quoted words apparently didn't begin showing up on the Internet until months after they were supposedly spoken, rather than immediately afterwards." http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/achievements.aspOriginally posted by mrbbrad saw this elsewhere today and thought of this thread. it about clears it up. Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014 - “My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.” What has she actually done? I seriously have no idea why she is so popular. Will someone who supports her please list her major accomplishments that make her a legitimate candidate? JMK, it was on the internet. That means it has to be true. |
| 2015-08-13 10:50 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton What do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol |
| 2015-08-13 5:58 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by tuwood What do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol I've said previously that I'm not a big fan of hers, and so I suppose it's possible that she may have bent the rules somewhat with respect to her email accounts. But we're talking about a person who has been in public life for decades and who has had designs on the White House for who knows how long. It's unlikely to me that she would have jeopardized her potential candidacy over something so silly and I doubt there's anything of value to be found. To me, this is just like Benghazi in the sense that it's less about actually getting to the truth than it is about a) trying to put her on the defensive for as long as possible and b) hoping that the continued suggestion of some kind of malfeasance leads people to assume that even if she's not 100% guilty that surely she must have done something wrong or we wouldn't still be talking about it. I don't think it's going to work either. |
| 2015-08-13 9:32 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 1240 Columbia, MO | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by tuwood Actually there are charges the could be brought regarding the email that could prevent her from running for or holding any office in the USWhat do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol |
| 2015-08-14 9:30 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I've said previously that I'm not a big fan of hers, and so I suppose it's possible that she may have bent the rules somewhat with respect to her email accounts. But we're talking about a person who has been in public life for decades and who has had designs on the White House for who knows how long. It's unlikely to me that she would have jeopardized her potential candidacy over something so silly and I doubt there's anything of value to be found. To me, this is just like Benghazi in the sense that it's less about actually getting to the truth than it is about a) trying to put her on the defensive for as long as possible and b) hoping that the continued suggestion of some kind of malfeasance leads people to assume that even if she's not 100% guilty that surely she must have done something wrong or we wouldn't still be talking about it. I don't think it's going to work either. What do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol I tend to agree. One thing I've learned is to take EVERYTHING I read in the political world with a huge grain of salt. I think it was just the last day or two where the blogosphere was blowing up about Ben Carson doing a study on aborted fetuses in the past. However, when he actually addressed it, he was a doctor on a large study that submitted some cell slides of adult brain tumor tissues. However, the way his opponents sounded he aborted the babies himself. |
| 2015-08-14 9:42 AM in reply to: bsjracing |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by bsjracing Originally posted by tuwood Actually there are charges the could be brought regarding the email that could prevent her from running for or holding any office in the USWhat do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol I could certainly be wrong, but I don't think there's anything that disqualifies a person from running other than age and being a natural born citizen. There's no background checks because the public and press is the best judge of a persons background. I remember a few years back there was a felon sex offender running for governor of CA and had enough votes that he even had to be allowed in the debates. It caused quite a stir because everyone felt that he shouldn't be able to even run due to his record. |
| 2015-08-14 4:19 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I've said previously that I'm not a big fan of hers, and so I suppose it's possible that she may have bent the rules somewhat with respect to her email accounts. But we're talking about a person who has been in public life for decades and who has had designs on the White House for who knows how long. It's unlikely to me that she would have jeopardized her potential candidacy over something so silly and I doubt there's anything of value to be found. To me, this is just like Benghazi in the sense that it's less about actually getting to the truth than it is about a) trying to put her on the defensive for as long as possible and b) hoping that the continued suggestion of some kind of malfeasance leads people to assume that even if she's not 100% guilty that surely she must have done something wrong or we wouldn't still be talking about it. I don't think it's going to work either. What do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol I tend to agree. One thing I've learned is to take EVERYTHING I read in the political world with a huge grain of salt. I think it was just the last day or two where the blogosphere was blowing up about Ben Carson doing a study on aborted fetuses in the past. However, when he actually addressed it, he was a doctor on a large study that submitted some cell slides of adult brain tumor tissues. However, the way his opponents sounded he aborted the babies himself. And there's a real possibility it'll backfire. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of her popularity stems from the fact that the GOP has tried for so long and in so many ways to discredit her. |
| 2015-08-14 9:20 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood And there's a real possibility it'll backfire. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of her popularity stems from the fact that the GOP has tried for so long and in so many ways to discredit her. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I've said previously that I'm not a big fan of hers, and so I suppose it's possible that she may have bent the rules somewhat with respect to her email accounts. But we're talking about a person who has been in public life for decades and who has had designs on the White House for who knows how long. It's unlikely to me that she would have jeopardized her potential candidacy over something so silly and I doubt there's anything of value to be found. To me, this is just like Benghazi in the sense that it's less about actually getting to the truth than it is about a) trying to put her on the defensive for as long as possible and b) hoping that the continued suggestion of some kind of malfeasance leads people to assume that even if she's not 100% guilty that surely she must have done something wrong or we wouldn't still be talking about it. I don't think it's going to work either. What do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol I tend to agree. One thing I've learned is to take EVERYTHING I read in the political world with a huge grain of salt. I think it was just the last day or two where the blogosphere was blowing up about Ben Carson doing a study on aborted fetuses in the past. However, when he actually addressed it, he was a doctor on a large study that submitted some cell slides of adult brain tumor tissues. However, the way his opponents sounded he aborted the babies himself. Purely as somebody who kind of enjoys the political "gamesmanship" I love watching various strategies like this that work and don't work. I read an article yesterday about how Bernie is starting to get a bit of a boost from people who are sick of the establishment Dem's (aka Clintons). I guess Obama basically came in and steamrolled the establishment machine as well in 2008 because that was "Hillary's year". |
| 2015-08-15 8:26 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood And there's a real possibility it'll backfire. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of her popularity stems from the fact that the GOP has tried for so long and in so many ways to discredit her. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I've said previously that I'm not a big fan of hers, and so I suppose it's possible that she may have bent the rules somewhat with respect to her email accounts. But we're talking about a person who has been in public life for decades and who has had designs on the White House for who knows how long. It's unlikely to me that she would have jeopardized her potential candidacy over something so silly and I doubt there's anything of value to be found. To me, this is just like Benghazi in the sense that it's less about actually getting to the truth than it is about a) trying to put her on the defensive for as long as possible and b) hoping that the continued suggestion of some kind of malfeasance leads people to assume that even if she's not 100% guilty that surely she must have done something wrong or we wouldn't still be talking about it. I don't think it's going to work either. What do you guys think about the email junk with Hillary? Obviously there are political motivations behind it, but it still seems a little weird that she would (allegedly) use personal email services for work purposes. My guess, is that the retention aspect of government emails can be problematic at times in the hyper gotcha political world but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. Honestly I don't think it will hurt her very much in the race because her supporters are her supporters and they're pretty die hard. She could be convicted of a felony and still run for President. (might not win, but could still run) I am also chuckling a little at Bernie Sanders getting some traction in NH because the Democrats love to bag on Republicans for nominating old white guys. lol I tend to agree. One thing I've learned is to take EVERYTHING I read in the political world with a huge grain of salt. I think it was just the last day or two where the blogosphere was blowing up about Ben Carson doing a study on aborted fetuses in the past. However, when he actually addressed it, he was a doctor on a large study that submitted some cell slides of adult brain tumor tissues. However, the way his opponents sounded he aborted the babies himself. Purely as somebody who kind of enjoys the political "gamesmanship" I love watching various strategies like this that work and don't work. I read an article yesterday about how Bernie is starting to get a bit of a boost from people who are sick of the establishment Dem's (aka Clintons). I guess Obama basically came in and steamrolled the establishment machine as well in 2008 because that was "Hillary's year". I still can't figure out if Sanders is the real deal yet. I suspect some of his popularity is due to the fact that the GOP race is such a train wreck right now that Dems figure they can win with anybody. Once (if?) a serious GOP contender emerges from the clown car I think support is going to coalesce back around Hillary. |
| 2015-08-15 10:37 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... |
| 2015-08-15 4:41 PM in reply to: NXS |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by NXS This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... This is exactly the kind of thing the Republican National Committee is talking about when they refer to the way in which the GOP continues to "drive around in circles on an idealogical cul-de-sac." There isn't a shred of new thinking in the party. They just continue to recycle the same old tired ineffective arguments that have lost the last two elections. "Death panels", anyone? |
| 2015-08-15 7:15 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... This is exactly the kind of thing the Republican National Committee is talking about when they refer to the way in which the GOP continues to "drive around in circles on an idealogical cul-de-sac." There isn't a shred of new thinking in the party. They just continue to recycle the same old tired ineffective arguments that have lost the last two elections. "Death panels", anyone? So, is there any difference in a socialist and a democrat or are they one in the same? |
| 2015-08-15 7:21 PM in reply to: NXS |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... This is exactly the kind of thing the Republican National Committee is talking about when they refer to the way in which the GOP continues to "drive around in circles on an idealogical cul-de-sac." There isn't a shred of new thinking in the party. They just continue to recycle the same old tired ineffective arguments that have lost the last two elections. "Death panels", anyone? So, is there any difference in a socialist and a democrat or are they one in the same? You sure ask a lot of questions. Why don't you look it up and try coming to a conclusion for yourself for a change. You be amazed at what you learn when you stop letting like-minded people do all your thinking for you. |
| 2015-08-16 6:54 AM in reply to: 0 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... This is exactly the kind of thing the Republican National Committee is talking about when they refer to the way in which the GOP continues to "drive around in circles on an idealogical cul-de-sac." There isn't a shred of new thinking in the party. They just continue to recycle the same old tired ineffective arguments that have lost the last two elections. "Death panels", anyone? So, is there any difference in a socialist and a democrat or are they one in the same? You sure ask a lot of questions. Why don't you look it up and try coming to a conclusion for yourself for a change. You be amazed at what you learn when you stop letting like-minded people do all your thinking for you. Edited by NXS 2015-08-16 6:55 AM |
| 2015-08-17 8:14 AM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... This is exactly the kind of thing the Republican National Committee is talking about when they refer to the way in which the GOP continues to "drive around in circles on an idealogical cul-de-sac." There isn't a shred of new thinking in the party. They just continue to recycle the same old tired ineffective arguments that have lost the last two elections. "Death panels", anyone? So, is there any difference in a socialist and a democrat or are they one in the same? You sure ask a lot of questions. Why don't you look it up and try coming to a conclusion for yourself for a change. You be amazed at what you learn when you stop letting like-minded people do all your thinking for you. I'd say the difference is narrowing. The POTUS front runner for the democrat party is a socialist. Are you mad because you're being called a socialist or because the difference between the two parties is fading? Own it or change it. Your party that is... |
| 2015-08-17 8:17 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by NXS I'd say the difference is narrowing. The POTUS front runner for the democrat party is a socialist. Are you mad because you're being called a socialist or because the difference between the two parties is fading? Own it or change it. Your party that is... Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS You sure ask a lot of questions. Why don't you look it up and try coming to a conclusion for yourself for a change. You be amazed at what you learn when you stop letting like-minded people do all your thinking for you. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn So, is there any difference in a socialist and a democrat or are they one in the same? Originally posted by NXS This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... This is exactly the kind of thing the Republican National Committee is talking about when they refer to the way in which the GOP continues to "drive around in circles on an idealogical cul-de-sac." There isn't a shred of new thinking in the party. They just continue to recycle the same old tired ineffective arguments that have lost the last two elections. "Death panels", anyone? I think it's safe to say Bernie Sanders is a socialist, simply because that's what he calls himself.
|
| 2015-08-17 1:12 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by NXS I'd say the difference is narrowing. The POTUS front runner for the democrat party is a socialist. Are you mad because you're being called a socialist or because the difference between the two parties is fading? Own it or change it. Your party that is... Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by NXS You sure ask a lot of questions. Why don't you look it up and try coming to a conclusion for yourself for a change. You be amazed at what you learn when you stop letting like-minded people do all your thinking for you. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn So, is there any difference in a socialist and a democrat or are they one in the same? Originally posted by NXS This has got to be the funniest and most revealing thing to what the democrat party has become. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/debbie_wasserman_schult... This is exactly the kind of thing the Republican National Committee is talking about when they refer to the way in which the GOP continues to "drive around in circles on an idealogical cul-de-sac." There isn't a shred of new thinking in the party. They just continue to recycle the same old tired ineffective arguments that have lost the last two elections. "Death panels", anyone? I think it's safe to say Bernie Sanders is a socialist, simply because that's what he calls himself.
I guess, although I think there's a difference between what he means when he calls himself as a Socialist and what the far-right chicken-little fear-mongers are suggesting is implied. The model that he's suggesting is not pure Soviet-era socialism where all production and the the entire economy is run by the state. What he's suggesting, is a social democracy, which (from a definition I found online) "supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy" in an attempt to ensure that a capitalist economy supports everyone, not just the people at the top of the economic food chain. It's really not much different, philosophically, from the New Deal. In fact, most "true" Socialists would oppose this model, because it's fundamentally based on a capitalist economy, and not a traditionally socialist one. In other words, what he's advocating is a capitalist-based economy with certain guardrails to ensure that a thriving capitalist economy benefits everyone, from the CEO to the guy that sweeps the stairs. That isn't what we've got now. What we have now is an economy that richly rewards the top 10% of earners at the expense of nearly everyone else. That's not the model that has been in place for most of this country's history, and it's not a sustainable economic model for the future anymore than "Let them eat cake" worked in France in the 1700's. |
| 2015-08-17 2:23 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton i'll end the quote thing because it is getting tooooooo long, but i'm replying to you Jonah. I understand what he is suggesting and it all sounds good to a point. We've been under the exact same kind of leadership for 6-7 years now and that economic gap has not closed, but widened. We've given the government control of a large sector of our economy ( health care ) with promise that they would improve it. My personal experience has proven that my health care costs have soared and my coverage has diminished. I'm not convinced that giving them single payer will make it better. I do hope the system remains in place as I might need to use it when I retire at 57! I can't see adding more social programs than we already have. They are beneficial and I have personally benefitted and thrived as a result of one here in Texas. So I do see where they can help and am not against social programs. I'd just like to see them reined in a bit to where they are helpful for short term aid and not a crutch to lean on forever. There's a fine balance and we've tipped the wrong direction. Boosting that spending keeps us going the wrong way IMO. We can agree when it comes to the 10%ers. Not the ten percenters that already have wealth, but the ones that are running American businesses into the ground. Business school today must be teaching 2 problems solving concepts. Pay cut/lay offs and out-sourcing. Seems that when a business gets in a financial mess, lay offs, pay cuts and out-sourcing are the go to fix. Then it's bonuses all around for senior mgmt and board members. That sh** needs to stop and it needs to stop now before our entire work force is out-sourced or let go. Seems we are already running a hybrid Socialist/Capitalist system already. I think the model we are running can be amended and improved upon. Adding more burden to the already bloated social problems won't fix things. Reining in the corporate ysaghoos a bit will help. So he's got some good ideas and flawed ideas, in my opinion only of course. They all do. I'm still waiting for someone to pop up and say what I want to hear. |
| 2015-08-18 8:49 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: School me on Hilary Clinton Originally posted by mdg2003 i'll end the quote thing because it is getting tooooooo long, but i'm replying to you Jonah. I understand what he is suggesting and it all sounds good to a point. We've been under the exact same kind of leadership for 6-7 years now and that economic gap has not closed, but widened. We've given the government control of a large sector of our economy ( health care ) with promise that they would improve it. My personal experience has proven that my health care costs have soared and my coverage has diminished. I'm not convinced that giving them single payer will make it better. I do hope the system remains in place as I might need to use it when I retire at 57! I can't see adding more social programs than we already have. They are beneficial and I have personally benefitted and thrived as a result of one here in Texas. So I do see where they can help and am not against social programs. I'd just like to see them reined in a bit to where they are helpful for short term aid and not a crutch to lean on forever. There's a fine balance and we've tipped the wrong direction. Boosting that spending keeps us going the wrong way IMO. We can agree when it comes to the 10%ers. Not the ten percenters that already have wealth, but the ones that are running American businesses into the ground. Business school today must be teaching 2 problems solving concepts. Pay cut/lay offs and out-sourcing. Seems that when a business gets in a financial mess, lay offs, pay cuts and out-sourcing are the go to fix. Then it's bonuses all around for senior mgmt and board members. That sh** needs to stop and it needs to stop now before our entire work force is out-sourced or let go. Seems we are already running a hybrid Socialist/Capitalist system already. I think the model we are running can be amended and improved upon. Adding more burden to the already bloated social problems won't fix things. Reining in the corporate ysaghoos a bit will help. So he's got some good ideas and flawed ideas, in my opinion only of course. They all do. I'm still waiting for someone to pop up and say what I want to hear. I think most people, Democrat and Republican want the same thing-- we want a thriving capitalist economy where the rights of every worker are protected, and where corporations are held accountable for breaches of ethics, the law, and the public trust. Ive said before that I can accept that not everyone has the same opportunities-- a kid who's born into a family of CEO's is getting off on a better foot than a kid who's born to a single, uninvolved parent in a ghetto, and that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. But the gap is getting wider, as you oberved, and I don't think it's entiely fair to lay the blame at the feet of Obama. So, I think we're both saying the same thing. I suspect I disagree with some of the details of your comment above, but, to the extent that I think we're in line on the overarching argument, I'm not going to nit-pick. It's getting harder for even a two-income family to earn enough money to buy a home and save for college and retirement, and that's something that should be of concern to everyone. The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument only goes so far. The middle class isn't deteriorating in this country for a lack of bootstraps. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| Religion in schools again Pages: 1 2 | ||
| Prayer in School Pages: 1 2 | ||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK