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.
The party of Lincoln killed 800,000 Americans and gave us the beginning of Big Government. So, let's hope that the party of Lincoln is gone.
They saved the Union and I would say the war was actually started by the South believing the could leave it and firing the first shots. But as things are today he may have only forestalled the inevitable. Be careful what you wish for, it could be far worse, the GOP at least provides some balance, I for one would not want the Dems in total control, nor would I want the Repubs in that position especially if the Tea Party takes over the GOP.
This is example one of why you do not understand. Democrats are not for this, they just say they are. They had the chance to institute some real reform and did nothing.
Yes because their backers don't want that. The Democrats wants to be like the progressives from the 1900's but the companies affected do not want to end up like the trusts that the progressives like Roosevelt broke up as president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restrain
The reason there is no fiscal reform is that the Democrats are funded by more billionaires than Republicans. The billionaires are getting their money from Wall Street that is directly the beneficiary of the Fed.
You can't go wrong following the money.
That is part of the problem but it would happen with any platform. Look at the TEA Party with the Koch brothers backing TEA related PACs with their truck loads of money. They are at least backing two PACs. The problem is lobbying groups have the real party in Washington.
They saved the Union and I would say the war was actually started by the South believing the could leave it and firing the first shots. But as things are today he may have only forestalled the inevitable. Be careful what you wish for, it could be far worse, the GOP at least provides some balance, I for one would not want the Dems in total control, nor would I want the Repubs in that position especially if the Tea Party takes over the GOP.
This is what I fear because the Civil War was mostly divided by the Mason-Dixon line with a few fights in the Arizona territory. The issue is with the fracturing, we see some want their state to secede, typically those in uber-conservative states like Texas and Arizona.
They saved the Union and I would say the war was actually started by the South believing the could leave it and firing the first shots. But as things are today he may have only forestalled the inevitable. Be careful what you wish for, it could be far worse, the GOP at least provides some balance, I for one would not want the Dems in total control, nor would I want the Repubs in that position especially if the Tea Party takes over the GOP.
The one thing I learned with Lincoln is that people believe that Lincoln and the "Radical Republicans" of reconstruction era congress, were the ones to start a strong federal government at the expense of state rights. This is also where libs complain about "statists" who want the state in individuals' lives rather than free reign. The issue being that if we allowed people to do what they want, we would see a lot more crime. Not that I am promoting a police state but a lib state may not be anarchy like people think, it will be a more crime ridden and relatively unprotected.
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.