mreye Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Are these the same founding fathers that "forgot" to let women have the vote and valued slaves at less than a full person? Check history to see why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person to stop the South from buying more slaves to boost up their population. It wasn't a racist reason. Founding Fathers wanted to outlaw slavery from the start, but were too afraid that it would cause what it eventually did almost 100 years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Regardless, the biggest sin of the whole Clinton Affair was the complete and utter waste of millions of tax dollars for a personal vendetta. Anyone who is looking up at politicians to be their role models is obviously detached from reality as is, but I'll take a bunch of lying, sex addicts who at least spend public funds in the interests of the public, over a bunch of God-fearing, perfect gentlemen who use public money to run their own witch hunts. the real crime was clinton underminded his own authority with his behavior and then attempts to cover it up...his last year in office he became a lame duck president...then when oil prices went through the roof that winter and the economy started going south he spent his last year in office defending himself and trying to save his perceived legacy instead of dealing with a downturn in the economy...and im sure you can blame the republicans for that saying that if they didnt go after him that wouldnt have happened but thats just not the way it works in politics...if it would have been a republican in the whitehouse at the time democrats would have done the same thing..if you dont believe go check out what happened to republican senator bob packwood a few years before when accusations of sexual misconduct came out about him...democrats ate him alive... this was no different that what nixon did..did something stupid , illegal, then covered it up...destroyed his credibility and undermined his own power...he had nothing left to do but resign.. something i never thought about before but in both instances the economy went in the crapper right as or just after these incidents occured...im sure there are plenty of other factors for both downturns but could one of the catalysts be that in both cases the people felt the country was in trouble because of lack of leadership??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Business cycle. The 90s were long overdue for a recession. I don't weigh the President as one of the factors when I'm buying things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Business cycle. The 90s were long overdue for a recession. I don't weigh the President as one of the factors when I'm buying things. I usually don't except when I look at the stock market. George W. Bush has been very good for the stock market erasing capital dividends taxes and leaving interest rates at all-time lows. No matter who the Democrat nominee is, you can bet that if he ousts George W. Bush, the market will probably go back into at least a quarterly recession. Then again, newly elected presidents tend to avoid raising taxes immediately upon entering office. Either way, Greenspan will be raising rates very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 I usually don't except when I look at the stock market. George W. Bush has been very good for the stock market erasing capital dividends taxes and leaving interest rates at all-time lows. No matter who the Democrat nominee is, you can bet that if he ousts George W. Bush, the market will probably go back into at least a quarterly recession. Then again, newly elected presidents tend to avoid raising taxes immediately upon entering office. Either way, Greenspan will be raising rates very soon. Actually I have got two real quick points. A quarterly recession by definition is impossible. A recession is defined as two consecutive declining quarters. And as for raising rates, it sounds as if a rate increase won't come until at least this summer. The professionals and the futures based on interest rates, don't have a rate increase priced in until June's contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Any guy in America would lie at first when asked if he cheated on his wife. I don't care if he's the President. he's still human. The fact that he was cheating on his wife should never have been a court matter anyways--except maybe divorce court. cmon wayne.. a week before he admitted he cheated with mionica he let his wife go on national on good moring america IIRC and let her tell all of a america that her husband never cheated with monica and that this was some kind of a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY all dreamed up by rebuplicans trying to ruin his reputation...he knew what she was gonna say and at that point had to realize the truth would be out soon but he let her do it anyways... not only did he cheat on his wife he then lets her go out on national TV and lets her finish the job he started and completely make a fool of herself... what kind of a man would do that????..defending this guy is insane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 what kind of a man would do that????..defending this guy is insane Defending the charatcer of any politician is insane. The name of the game is to see who can throw the most scum without getting hit. The real judgment of government leaders is how they handle themselves on the job. Not how much of a "role model" they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Check history to see why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person to stop the South from buying more slaves to boost up their population. It wasn't a racist reason. Founding Fathers wanted to outlaw slavery from the start, but were too afraid that it would cause what it eventually did almost 100 years later. Are you saying the founding fathers not want the south to boost their numbers? The founding fathers had already solved that issue via strong individual states and the electoral college. I guess you are also saying that slaves should not have been able to vote? Cause what you are saying here is: If the South keeps bringing in slaves the slaves will have a huge voting voice and we do not want that. The founding fathers didn't want too many black people from voting? This is like claiming today that California has too many people so we should count Californians as 3/5th. So from the beginning the founding fathers were plotting to keep the south from becoming more powerful then the north? Did the south have too many women also? The founding fathers did not receive God like powers and devine intervention. They made errors and they could not forsee future events. It was a great document to begin a nation but not perfect. We should not be afraid to amend and keep our government relevant to the times we live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.