Hillary is not a socialist (Representatives, Hugo Chavez, vote, Congress)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A person with means (assets/inheritance, talents, education, knowledge, ethnic heritage, political/social connections, etc.) wants the liberty to deploy those means as he/she wishes. But such a person acting in his/her own self-interest (a fundamental premise of capitalism) can lead to POLLUTION, DISCRIMINATION, UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, CARTELS, ORGANIZED CRIME, RESTRAINT OF TRADE, etc. So there is a basis for the society to institute laws regulating various aspects of economic behavior.
A person of few means wants the liberty to pursue education, acquire permits, join associations, conduct enterprise, etc. to better himself/herself WITHOUT ARBITRARY LIMITATIONS (race, gender, sexual preference, irrelevant physical handicaps, etc.). To have a person of lesser means improve his/her economic standing adds value, strength, and resiliency to the overall economy, if no significant distortions are introduced into the economy while doing so. So this means it is in the interest of all to provide subsidized education, to discourage and prosecute DISCRIMINATION and UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, etc.
To have a complex society and economy, there will be a need for more than SIMPLISTIC government activities. Libertariansim is practically speaking incompatible with a complex society and economy.
"Small" government favors the rich, by definition. Always has, always will.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 11-02-2007 at 05:47 PM..
Yes, this I agree. The poster wanted clarification on what I meant by socialist leanings. I simply gave alternative definitions; ie socialist inclinations, socialist tendencies. . . whatever.
I'll take a stab at it. The willingness and desire to institute policies that benefit the state instead of the individual by expanding its power, influence and control over the economic lives of its citizens.
I skipped all of the past 4 pages since it is full of foo foo...Hillary Clinton is not a Socialist in any way. In fact the right should be embracing her on her stances on foreign policy & economic issues save healthcare which is going to change no matter who is in office.
I skipped all of the past 4 pages since it is full of foo foo...Hillary Clinton is not a Socialist in any way. In fact the right should be embracing her on her stances on foreign policy & economic issues save healthcare which is going to change no matter who is in office.
You obviously haven't followed her political career if you think her stances are evern remotely moderate on economic issues and foreign policy. She's playing the triangulation game that her husband performed so well. Emphasis on "PERFORMED".
I skipped all of the past 4 pages since it is full of foo foo...Hillary Clinton is not a Socialist in any way. In fact the right should be embracing her on her stances on foreign policy & economic issues save healthcare which is going to change no matter who is in office.
I agree... the bottom line is.. ALL candidates.. red or blue.. endorse socialistic policies.. if they didn't we wouldn't have as many as we do today...
so to call hillary a socialist for hers.. would also be calling the rest socialists by default...
There is always going to be a social aspect to every law and every policy... its a matter of people liking some of them.. and the ones they don't like.. brand them as SOCIALIST!... its been a great marketing tool in the past.. but its ridiculous...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.