Hillary = Bill = Gore?

[Technosoul]

If and when Hillary is elected as the next President what roles if any would Bill Clinton perform, other then spreading "good will" on a global scale? And whould Hillary bring Al Gore back to head up a 'environmental department' which might overview plans to counter act and to prepare for global warming?

What is you guess or opinon?

[Osborn F Enready]

Two biggest threats to individual rights in the Presidential race, except Tommy "microchip" Thompson and Dennis "the Socialist" Kucinich.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Two biggest threats to individual rights in the Presidential race, except Tommy "microchip" Thompson and Dennis "the Socialist" Kucinich.

How did you like the way Hillary explained the word "Liberal" and replaced it with the word "Progressive".

It is getting a little bit old hat to keep calling Democrats "socialists" when there is such a drastic difference between them concerning the over all philosophy of politcs.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: How did you like the way Hillary explained the word "Liberal" and replaced it with the word "Progressive".

I think it was interesting the way she sees "progressive" as interchangeable with "socialist". She surely isn't a "classical Liberal", and her views on taxation clearly put her up the authoritarian scale towards communism.

It doesn't matter what label you choose, or is affixed to you..... your actions exemplify what you "are", and Hillary is a communist, but only admits to being a socialist, while calling herself a "progressive".

Techno said: It is getting a little bit old hat to keep calling Democrats "socialists" when there is such a drastic difference between them concerning the over all philosophy of politcs.

I would agree, but, overall almost all democrats are of the belief economicly that the state and fed know better what to do with your money than you do, and believe in a high taxation rate for a variety of "social" programs. That alone is reason enough to "label" them socialists, or even communists since they unilaterally prefer forced taxation for questionably valued social programs.

I have nothing against socialists if they keep their beliefs local and voluntary. I have a lot against communists, who believe in rule by force and deprivation, and don't recognize private property or individual rights.

I am a bit harsher than most, admittedly, but it's not as if I am not speaking the obvious. I'm just a little blunt about it.

[phoenix_fire]

I think she would (and should) keep Bill locked up in a dark, tiny little room far, far away from any other females of any species in order to keep him from embarassing her.

[LadiesMan217]

If and when Hillary is elected as the next President what roles if any would Bill Clinton perform, other then spreading "good will" on a global scale? And whould Hillary bring Al Gore back to head up a 'environmental department' which might overview plans to counter act and to prepare for global warming? What is you guess or opinon?

I think he would have the job of what any first lady has... keeping the White House tidy. ZING!!! Just kidding, that was sexist. Sorry.

[Yarn]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It doesn't matter what label you choose, or is affixed to you..... your actions exemplify what you "are", and Hillary is a communist, but only admits to being a socialist, while calling herself a "progressive".

Socialism:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
socialism - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Socialist:
1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
socialist - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Hillary isn't for giving the government complete control over all the means of production and distribution, Ron Paul isn't for giving the government no control over any means of production and distribution.

So either they are both socialists or neither of them are, because that definition doesn't leave room for some intermediary threshold point.

Communism strangely doesn't require Marxism.

Communism:
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
communism - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Communist:
2. an advocate of communism.
communist - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Hillary is certainly therefore not a communist.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think it was interesting the way she sees "progressive" as interchangeable with "socialist". She surely isn't a "classical Liberal", and her views on taxation clearly put her up the authoritarian scale towards communism. It doesn't matter what label you choose, or is affixed to you..... your actions exemplify what you "are", and Hillary is a communist, but only admits to being a socialist, while calling herself a "progressive". I would agree, but, overall almost all democrats are of the belief economicly that the state and fed know better what to do with your money than you do, and believe in a high taxation rate for a variety of "social" programs. That alone is reason enough to "label" them socialists, or even communists since they unilaterally prefer forced taxation for questionably valued social programs. I have nothing against socialists if they keep their beliefs local and voluntary. I have a lot against communists, who believe in rule by force and deprivation, and don't recognize private property or individual rights. I am a bit harsher than most, admittedly, but it's not as if I am not speaking the obvious. I'm just a little blunt about it.

The way she explained it is that once upon a time liberals advocated individual rights and they worked to improve the status of the working class, bringing it up into what we now call the middle-class. However then the right-wing re-defined the name so that if now means "big government" telling people what to do. So the name no longer fits her views which are closer to the original meaning of the word, so they just came up with a new word. Progressive. The government should be of and FOR the people, not the Lobby Groups of big business.

I am all for private businesses and I do not favor big government anymore then you do. However now the private businesses have become Big Business which is as bad as Big Government. They have failed the public due to their greed, price manipulations and monopolies (granted to them mostly by Republicans) and have distroyed many of the concepts of a fair and competitive market place. It is evident that the health care system has failed to meet the demands of lower income families, and the gas and power companies have failed the public in providing products and services at a fair price. Some private businesses have become like dictators ( as bad as being a commie) and we do not wish to be forced to subject our self to such overlords anymore when it comes to our basic needs. If it no longer works, fix it.

We cannot not just boycott hospitals and the gas stations and survive in a decent life style. And so how can we fix it? We turn to our representivies in Washington, namely Hillary Clinton. "okay girl, get out the tools and fix this problem that is not working anymore".

If Big Business does not want to be replaced with a governmental department then they had better learn how to confrom to the will of the people, because we the people want a system that is workable and just for everyone.

Be adviced Mr Big Business, with your power lobby, times they are a-chaingin', and your time of control could go down the "you tube" if you do not wise up and make things right again. For we are the people and this is our country, it belongs not to the banker alone. We WILL rise up and reclaim this land and our rights to exist as human beings in a fair and decent economy.

Private businesses have failed us in providing more jobs in the areas of production, by outsourcing them to other countries and so forth. And they have been allowed too many loopholes in the tax stucture so that the workers must carry the weight for them. If they fail then they get flunked, behold, they are replacable. It is possible for us to "fire the bosses" and hire politics to run things if they do not "get with the program" of making America better off. It is their choice, but time is running out so they better the hell act fast. The elections are near at hand.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yarn, I hate to tell you, but this isn't a black and white world.

All of the current democratic canidates are socialist leaning, but more communist than socialist.

They all seek to limit the rights on private property.
They all seek more tax dollars to fund more social programs.
They all seek more federal control over the states.
They all (that I have seen so far) support gun control regulation.

You are correct when you say that none of them are "technically" a socialist or communist, but that is a small issue of technicality because they all are leaning so far to the left economicly, and to the right socially, its become a joke watching them try to distance themselves from each other on any issues.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yarn, I hate to tell you, but this isn't a black and white world. All of the current democratic canidates are socialist leaning, but more communist than socialist. They all seek to limit the rights on private property. They all seek more tax dollars to fund more social programs. They all seek more federal control over the states. They all (that I have seen so far) support gun control regulation. You are correct when you say that none of them are "technically" a socialist or communist, but that is a small issue of technicality because they all are leaning so far to the left economicly, and to the right socially, its become a joke watching them try to distance themselves from each other on any issues.

None of them talked about raising income taxes. That is a myth used to scare voters into voting for the Republicans.

When some states wanted to make gay marrage legal, the Republicans moved to take away that right. When local states wanted to make medical pot legal, the Republicans then in power did not move to adopt those rights as part of Federal Law. When states wanted to enforce federal laws about immigration that are on the books the Republican White House refused to release to them the funding earmarked for that enforcement. When local states demanded fair voting procedures the Republicans failed to support that right. When local states drew up peititions to end the war in Irag the Repubicans gave them a deaf ear.
Your claim is not justified by the facts.

Right, lets all bear arms at the airport and sell military weapons to the street gangs. And lets all enjoy the right to leave loaded guns around the house for kids to play with. Very constitutional of you to think that!

And let us make sure that private properties owned by factories can polute the world and generate health problems for everyone - very consitutional of you!

[Yarn]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You are correct when you say that none of them are "technically" a socialist or communist, but that is a small issue of technicality because they all are leaning so far to the left economicly, and to the right socially, its become a joke watching them try to distance themselves from each other on any issues.

Ron Paul is closer to being an anarchist, than any of the other canidates are to being socialist or communist, as are they. None of them advocate the government controlling more than 50% of the GDP in so far as I know.

[Netopalis]

And I'm sure that our founding fathers would have been appalled had anyone mentioned the government controlling more than 5% of the GDP - much less the federal government, which was merely supposed to give a bit of oversight on inter-state matters.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: None of them talked about raising income taxes. That is a myth used to scare voters into voting for the Republicans.

None of them "talk" about it because they know that will spoil their chances of getting a vote from the UNinformed people.

THEIR VOTING RECORDS show the facts though, and guess what Techno........

That new "democraticly led congress" has already SIDESTEPPED their OWN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (PAYGO) 12 TIMES SINCE THEY AGAIN TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS.

They can't even live by THEIR OWN rules for fiscal responsibility...... They should all be impeached.

Techno said: Right, lets all bear arms at the airport and sell military weapons to the street gangs. And lets all enjoy the right to leave loaded guns around the house for kids to play with. Very constitutional of you to think that!

Don't be a moron, I didn't say any of that you childish boob.

Yarn said: Ron Paul is closer to being an anarchist, than any of the other canidates are to being socialist or communist, as are they. None of them advocate the government controlling more than 50% of the GDP in so far as I know.

Excuse me, care to elaborate a bit to make your point?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready None of them "talk" about it because they know that will spoil their chances of getting a vote from the UNinformed people. THEIR VOTING RECORDS show the facts though, and guess what Techno........ That new "democraticly led congress" has already SIDESTEPPED their OWN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (PAYGO) 12 TIMES SINCE THEY AGAIN TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS. Don't be a moron, I didn't say any of that you childish boob. Excuse me, care to elaborate a bit to make your point?

What bill did they pass to raise your inocme taxes?

What is a "childish boob"? Is that the same as calling someone "stupid"? Have you already violated our " debater's responsibility act"?

[Yarn]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Excuse me, care to elaborate a bit to make your point?

My point is, if socialism and communism imply 100% government control of the economy, and if anarchism implies 0% government control of the economy, then anyone for less than 50% government control of the economy is more of an anarchist than a socialist. Particularly Ron Paul is nearly an anarchist. So why not call all the canidates anarchists?

I thought you said we were rounding:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready [Yarn], You are correct when you say that none of them are "technically" a socialist or communist, but that is a small issue of technicality because they all are leaning so far to the left economicly, and to the right socially, .

It is innane and utterly inaccurate, to say that anyone who wants siginificantly more government than you, is for 100% government control of the economy and our private lives.

[billybobama]

Quote by: Technosoul If and when Hillary is elected as the next President what roles if any would Bill Clinton perform, other then spreading "good will" on a global scale? And whould Hillary bring Al Gore back to head up a 'environmental department' which might overview plans to counter act and to prepare for global warming? What is you guess or opinon?

The value of the advice Hillary would recieve from Bill cannot even be measured. I would love to see Al Gore in the Cabinet. Can you imagine the talent Hillary could bring to the White House. Has the world ever had such an opportunity before? Just imagine if we also have a Democrat Congress.

[billybobama]

Quote by: Netopalis And I'm sure that our founding fathers would have been appalled had anyone mentioned the government controlling more than 5% of the GDP - much less the federal government, which was merely supposed to give a bit of oversight on inter-state matters.

The Republicans have always wanted a huge government and a Fascist Military State. Remember the Civil War?

[Netopalis]

When speaking about politics historically, I prefer to look at things from a Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian perspective, and shortly after the civil war, there was a significant change in the politics of both parties. The Republicans became more Jeffersonian and the Democrats became more Hamiltonian.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: billybobama The value of the advice Hillary would recieve from Bill cannot even be measured. I would love to see Al Gore in the Cabinet. Can you imagine the talent Hillary could bring to the White House. Has the world ever had such an opportunity before? Just imagine if we also have a Democrat Congress.

Agreed, and with Barbara Boxer tossed in, too boot.

If people want hope, go with Obama and pray.
If people want action, Hillary will show the way.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Netopalis When speaking about politics historically, I prefer to look at things from a Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian perspective, and shortly after the civil war, there was a significant change in the politics of both parties. The Republicans became more Jeffersonian and the Democrats became more Hamiltonian.

That is history. ... this is about a change.

Here is what I suggest. Each morning at sunrise chant Hilliary Hilliary Hilliary over and over, as long as it takes untill your mind is at peace.
This will bless you and a happy light will illuminate from you, and the blessing will redeate out into the world, and into the eternity of life.

(hmm, I should start my own video blog!).