Lana - I completely agree. I think people should be factual - too much arguing on the boards is personal. So, let me give you some facts about the Republican Party and why I vote Democratic (and, by the way - i recognize their faults...expanding social programs to the brink of collapse, allow government to get too big, supports unions who protect poor workers and unnaturally increase wages) - but this is why I am against the republicans (and I agree - the initial letter was weak) 1 - They lied about WMD in Iraq. Actually, Bush, after viewing Cheney's presentation said "That's all you got" - to which Cheney replied "its a slam dunk". How is that war now? No WMD and we are still there 2 years after Bush raised the Victory flag! 2 - when Al Queda were in our sights - we let them off the hook - now they are in a different country, hiding in the hills - continuing to plan their terror plots - Why, see #1 3 - and why did this happen, when he took office he was told about bin Laden and where to find him - they did nothing....hence - 9/11...read the report - its in there. 4 - Bush took on an economy that was in good shape, admittedly, not great shape - but then totally trashed it. With banking deregulation and tax havens that encourage companies to move jobs overseas - we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and banks crashed - leaving the economy on the verge of a depression that now those same republicans complain that this president kept us from by raising the debt 5 - He lowered taxes without cutting programs. He lowered taxes and created new programs with no new funding for them. The deficit grew and grew - and when told that this would leave the country deeply in debt - he responded "that won't be my problem" 6 - They are against gays in the military - at a time like this - do we really care what they do in the bedroom....how are they any less people - with fewer rights that heterosexuals 7 - they are anti-abortion (NOT pro-life - given the wars they started and the thousands of people that died due to their lies) -- what would they do if their daughter was raped - or a victim of incest??? 8 - they trampled all over individual rights with gitmo and the torture that went on there. Hanging by their arms naked, music at just below ear drum shattering levels for 24 hours, waterboarding...and even the army agrees that torture is unreliable 9 - cheyney, said 'he can't recall' 72 - SEVENTY TWO times under oath regarding the valarie plame affair even after his cheif of staff told him about the notes and discussion
Do you need more reasons?
Conservative2TheCore
· 2 months ago
MassMiddleMan, I used to respect your posts until this..... 1. While I agree the WMD argument blew up in their faces, had they just said, the UN is ineffective and dozens of "resolutions" aren't going to stop Hussein (who should have been ousted in 1991) so we're going in to finish the job, he would have gotten almost the same unanimous support. 2. When al-Queda was in our sights???? Oh, like they were after the USS Cole? Let's face it Bin-Laden has been neutralized, albeit he hasn't been brought to justice yet, but al-Queda was hardly "in our sights" and on the verge of being toppled. (See London, Madrid, Pakistan, Libya, et al) Killing one man was not going to cause al-queda operatives around to world to lay down their arms and ask for peace any suggestion they would is ignorant. 3. I don't know where to begin.....are you a "truther"???? Do you think Bush knew the plan? If the plan was so clear and Clinton told Bush about it, who has more blood on their hands? The one who was in office when it happened or the impeached one who couldnt' get out of office fast enough to avoid it? 4. Bush took an economy to historic prosperity over 6 years and it crumbled in his last two. Coincidently, that's when the Democrats took control of congress....but if that's not enough, the one single thing that all indicator point back to as the cause of the economic collapse was Wall St. trying to make a profit (god forbid!!!) off of TOXIC mortgages. (chicken vs. egg argument) Had the mortgage companies not been forced to write these mortgages, Wall St. wouldnt' have had to come up with a craft way to make money off them. Libs will point to Wall St. as the cause, I point to Main St. for speculating that buying a house you can't afford is a good investment. 5. He did lower taxes on EVERYBODY who paid them....he couldnt' cut programs because he didn't have a line item veto on the congressional budgets. Not cutting programs was a concession to liberals to continue funding the war on terror. 6. Gays in the military.....I could care less because I'm not in the military...but ask a guy (or girl) manning a post on the front line what they want, and then judge how much more effective our military would be if the current policy stayed in place. As I said, I don't have an opinion on this, so I'll leave it to the good men and women who volunteer to fight for our country. 7. While the official GOP stance is "anti-abortion", your logic about being "not pro-life" is weak. Personally, I wish the GOP would adopt a less staunch stance on abortion, but I liken their extreme argument to that of the NRA...if you make one small concession today, you'll make another small concession tomorrow and when all is said and done, you've given up. Even the Dems are torn on the abortion issue and let's face it, nobody really LIKES abortion, but it's a reality we need to contend with. If you LIKE abortions, there's something seriously wrong. But, I'll conceed it's a reality in our society. 8. We'll agree to disagree on what constitutes torture and what valuable info was gained. What I find more disturbing is because someone at GITMO, who was picked up for good cause, is given more rights than the good men and women they wanted to kill. And, now, Amherst MA, the liberal bastion of Massachusetts wants to take in the detainees and support them. Please.... 9. "he can't recall" is a lot different than "It depends on what 'is' means" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", which were lies under oath.....and lead to the impeachment of Clinton.
3.
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
Sorry you feel that way- but let me continue: 1 - the issue is that it was a lie - if there was a real argument for going into Iraq it should have been made and let it stand on its own. In essance, I think we agree - tacitly... 2 - my point was the Afghanistan argument - did Clinton mess it up - sure - - but, we targeted Al Queda and then went into Iraq before the job was finished....do you think otherwise? 3 - never impeached, attempt by the right - never completed because the case was too weak. as stated above - Clinton didn't handle it well - but Bush ignored the intelligence - it is in the 9/11 report! 4 - Don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye here. I don't agree with your assessment or data - and it would take hours to compare notes. 5 - sorry - it is a trend of Republican Presidents -the trickle down philosophy is what they use to say that they don't need to cut programs (because it hurts them in elections)---it never trickles down and so the tax base never increases. 6 - C40F handled this one below. 7 - I am not pro-abortion - I am for money spent on abstinence-only policies going to support adoption, I am for better education, I believe that these same men who vote against a women's right - if their daughter or wife were ever raped or a victim of incest - they would have a different view. It is easy to play the tough guy until one's family is touched by it. 8 - more rights - please.....i'll meet you for a weekend - do to you what was done to them - then you tell me if it was torture. 9 - you're kidding right - a president who gets a BJ (and MANY presidents in our history - great presidents have been found to have had affairs) - is comparable to a guy who basically committed an offense that would be considered treason if done by other members of the government?? you really think they are the same????
Conservative2TheCore
· 2 months ago
Clinton was impeached....he just wasn't ousted from office. Impeached, yes....ousted, no.
As for your response in #9, you're missing the point....I could care less what he/she was doing under the desk....what I care about (and what he was impeached over) was the fact that he LIED UNDER OATH...
If I steal a pack of gum from the 7-11, and go to trial and lie under oath, the lying under oath becomes a more egregious crime than stealing the gum! It's an impeachable offense, regardless of how minor the underlying act was.....
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
Impeached and then acquitted - correct.
Understand your point - but if you don't think that Mr. Cheney lied under oath about - can't recall.....then you are naive and you do not appear to be a naive person....
itsallover
· 2 months ago
Clinton was disbarred
C40F
· 2 months ago
"Gays in the military.....I could care less because I'm not in the military...but ask a guy (or girl) manning a post on the front line what they want, and then judge how much more effective our military would be if the current policy stayed in place."
C2C, when I was in the military, I was much more concerned with the skills of the guys and gals that I relied on to do my job than their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, their sexual orientation was something I don't recall ever giving any thought to.
Seems to me the real question here is not one of "gay rights" per se, as the military is not a laboratory for social experimentation, and a service person does not have the same civil rights that a civilian has.
Rather, the real question is what's in the best interest of the military?
From what I've read here and there over the last few years (sorry, no links here), it seems as if the military has lost a significant number of people with important if not critical skills (e.g., Arabic interpreters) because of Don't Ask/Don't Tell.
Given all the real difficult situations service people have to put up with, I think the vast majority could deal with open gays in their midst with little ot no trouble.
Just my opinion ...
Conservative2TheCore
· 2 months ago
I don't see what the big deal is with "don't ask/Don't tell".... NO employer can ask those questions....so what's the big deal? I said, I could care less because I only want what's best for the military. I have little or no personal interest vested in their policy.
oldesarge
· 2 months ago
People view the military as anti-gay but the truth is the military does not make their own rules, Congress makes the rules concerning the military. If people have a problem with "don't ask, don't tell" then their problem is not with the military or current or past administration it is with the US congress.
As for myself, I don't care. Most of the people I know that were kicked out for being gay (some were not gay) outed themselves because at the time it was the quickest and easiest way out.
C40F
· 2 months ago
"NO employer can ask those questions....so what's the big deal?"
I think the big deal is, unlike civilian employers, the military must discharge a troop once it finds he/she is gay, even if the troop is outed by someone else. As a result, the military is forced to let some people with critical skills go.
My guess is that after years of DADT, the military (and the country) would be better served as a whole if the policy were simply dropped, and from what I've read and seen on the TV/Internet news, a lot of retired senior military leaders think the same.
Anyhow, this is somewhat off-topic from the letter to the editor that prompted it, so I'll end it at that.
Conservative2TheCore
· 2 months ago
Fair enough...if someone is outed, there should be no repercussion. Agreed.
skepsis22
· 2 months ago
MassMiddleMan; After having digested your's and Lana's thoughts - one can only conclude - "There's no government like no government." With that said, I think we can all agree, both parties, that we'll call the "system", need some major tweaking or additional competition.
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
on this - we agree!
rpmtohz
· 2 months ago
Do you ever read what you write? The Democrats increase the government size and social programs but it is the Republicans fault for the deficit because they cut taxes but not the social programs. Did you ever stop to consider that if the Republicans didn't cut taxes we could be paying over 50% of our paychecks to taxes?
Your obsession with WMDs is a typical democrat ploy to blame Bush for the war. We went into Iraq both times because of the crimes against humanity and attacking surrounding countries. Hussien was tried, convicted and hanged for the crimes against humanity. You cry about the rights of the people in Gitmo but it was ok for Hussien to commit mass genecide? I have tried to get you to use some rational and common sense thinking but apparently that is beyond your ability. While you claim the Democrats are pro-choice you need to look at the healthcare bill H.R. 3962. You will see that the Democrats say it will not support abortion. You really have no clue what your party represents.
You claim Bush deregulated the banks. He did no such thing. Back in the early 90s the banks were regulated that they could only take 80% mortgage after the housing failure. Clinton and the Democrats pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take 100% mortgage and high risk loans. But the real estate failure is now Bush 's fault. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
Ok - now really - I give up .... you are calling me uneducated. Here is a link that proves to you that Republicans are for limiting women's rights to choose.... http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Par... The healthcare bill limits money for abortions ONLY because the Democrats are smart enough to recognize that this is a political lynchpin - if it was in there - they would be skewered and it is better to leave support for govt paid abortions out of the bill than risk the bill completely.
If you READ what I wrote - you will see that my issue is that republicans do what is called deficit spending - from a wall st journal article: In fact, of all the presidents in the last fifty years, exactly two of them didn't have deficit spending--Carter and Clinton, neither of whom was a Republican. Republicans CUT taxes but keep spending levels constants - which means the deficit increases under republican leadership! This article tells the story - Cato is actually a libertarian organization - https://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf
rpmtohz
· 2 months ago
Naive and gullible, didn't say uneducated. Republicans gave us tax cuts but that to you is deficit spending. But you say the democrats mde too many social programs. How are they suppose to stop the social programs without destroying themselves?
According to you if WNDs were found then the war would not be a lie? It would hve been justified? What about all the mas killing? The Democrats used WMDs to undermine the Republicans Just like you are doing. You forget we were not the only country there fighting.
Your mentality is like sueing the guy for planting a tree that you hit with your car.
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
Ok - bad night - I am calmer... Look - I agree - the Democrats have issues with raising taxes and unnecessarily increasing govt spending by expanding programs to support people those programs were never meant to support - then they raise taxes to pay for it. You seem to think republicans are responsible caretakers - THEIR policy is to deficit spend - - they believe that by cutting taxes - the tax base of payers will increase - - BUT, it has yet to truly pay off - so, what happens is that the deficit increases under republican administrations. Check the Cato link - I promise you - they are not a left wing group - and do a good job of explaining how republicans are irresponsible with handling the deficit.
bigkahunah
· 2 months ago
You seem to have forgotten I believe, Sudan, had Bin Laden and asked Clinton if he wanted him and a he said NO. That was your real #3. It was Clinton that could have had him 3 years before 9/11. He was sitting out in the open there. Bush got the remainder of Clinton's economy that was tanking as the election was going on. Whomever won (Bush or Gore) was walking into all the lies that Clinton and friends did to keep the economy robust the last 4 years of him. Remember Erronn, World Com ??? Whatever torture they did it kept them off of our land and when they come back you'll be begging for some extra justice for them. What is the meaning of "IS", ask Bill. As far as banks crashing you never heard of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank ?? Wow sheltered life you must have.
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
As I said - i am not justifying how clinton handled it -- However, you are ignoring the fact that Bush was told where he was - it is in the 9/11 report - you want to ignore it, fine. But then don't talk about my 'sheltered life' - when you simply want to ignore facts.
Enron and World Com were not Clinton debacles - they were a bunch of crooks who basically lied and used the system to hide their deeds. How on earth is that Clinton's fault?? It is like saying that Madoff is Bush's fault.....Those companies crashed because they cooked the books. Please - don't lecture me about a sheltered life when your examples aren't even relevant to the discussion! And if you believe that this is a country that should torture its prisoners - then you belong somewhere else. We are a civilized society - we are better than that. The people who support it are just angry men who watch too much TV! Pull yourself away from '24' - it is hollywood - not real life. On the "is" - i mean honestly, grow up - there are a string of president's through history that are great presidents that we found were not quite the perfect souls history shows them to be. Banks crashing = deregulation. I already admitted that a contributing factor was fannie and freddie laws - deregulation allowed them to run out of control. To the point that they didn't even need to hide from the system (like enron) - and this is the final straw. Get off the surfboard - read some educated materials and don't throw stones - stick to the facts.
stormwts1
· 2 months ago
You just wasted 10 min on listing non-facts.Congrats...
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
Do you use any facts in your post - go ahead - explain what is NOT a fact - it is all part of the record - You just don't like that they are facts...which is cool - but don't say they are not facts - they are - to ignore it is a bit naive on your part.
Conservative2TheCore
· 2 months ago
I used facts below....I think the fundamental difference between you and I are the way we interpret the facts. A perfect example is the economic meltdown. I blame the "chicken in every pot/entitlement" mentality that forced banks to write toxic loans.....you blame Wall St. for bundling them, and selling them as credit derivatives. But, the difference in our positions is this...Wall St. wouldn't have had to sell credit derivatives if Main St. didn't force them (first) to write them. Main St. bit off more than it could chew with the Bush housing boom, which a precarious bubble at best (remember tech stocks, condos, etc.) At the same time, the Wall St. companies that bet on credit derivatives are the laughing stocks of the industry now....but not the cause of the crisis.
MassMiddleMan
· 2 months ago
The comment wasn't addressed to you (pretty sure it was in response to stormwts1 - who seems to like personal attacks but doesn't like to share facts)
I believe that you are using facts - and I have a table full of facts that would also bear out my comments. I think, in the end, even economists don't really agree and so there is no true 'root cause'. The right will raise their data - the left theirs....i think the only thing we might agree on - is that the middle class is losing out. I see that throughout decision making - the squeeze is always on the middle....
hardcore2thebone
· 2 months ago
middleman, I was happy to read your letter but I disagree with Lana....Turner? Letter accusing that lady of the same things she is saying. Her letter was ill written.
jmeister_1
· 2 months ago
Where is the online Tuesday Sound Off?
bigkahunah
· 2 months ago
Lana DITTO
hardcore2thebone
· 2 months ago
Hey! Lana, Where did you go to school? Abstain from writing since you cannot put your sentences together correctly. Get a life
All Comments
So, let me give you some facts about the Republican Party and why I vote Democratic (and, by the way - i recognize their faults...expanding social programs to the brink of collapse, allow government to get too big, supports unions who protect poor workers and unnaturally increase wages) - but this is why I am against the republicans (and I agree - the initial letter was weak)
1 - They lied about WMD in Iraq. Actually, Bush, after viewing Cheney's presentation said "That's all you got" - to which Cheney replied "its a slam dunk". How is that war now? No WMD and we are still there 2 years after Bush raised the Victory flag!
2 - when Al Queda were in our sights - we let them off the hook - now they are in a different country, hiding in the hills - continuing to plan their terror plots - Why, see #1
3 - and why did this happen, when he took office he was told about bin Laden and where to find him - they did nothing....hence - 9/11...read the report - its in there.
4 - Bush took on an economy that was in good shape, admittedly, not great shape - but then totally trashed it. With banking deregulation and tax havens that encourage companies to move jobs overseas - we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and banks crashed - leaving the economy on the verge of a depression that now those same republicans complain that this president kept us from by raising the debt
5 - He lowered taxes without cutting programs. He lowered taxes and created new programs with no new funding for them. The deficit grew and grew - and when told that this would leave the country deeply in debt - he responded "that won't be my problem"
6 - They are against gays in the military - at a time like this - do we really care what they do in the bedroom....how are they any less people - with fewer rights that heterosexuals
7 - they are anti-abortion (NOT pro-life - given the wars they started and the thousands of people that died due to their lies) -- what would they do if their daughter was raped - or a victim of incest???
8 - they trampled all over individual rights with gitmo and the torture that went on there. Hanging by their arms naked, music at just below ear drum shattering levels for 24 hours, waterboarding...and even the army agrees that torture is unreliable
9 - cheyney, said 'he can't recall' 72 - SEVENTY TWO times under oath regarding the valarie plame affair even after his cheif of staff told him about the notes and discussion
Do you need more reasons?
1. While I agree the WMD argument blew up in their faces, had they just said, the UN is ineffective and dozens of "resolutions" aren't going to stop Hussein (who should have been ousted in 1991) so we're going in to finish the job, he would have gotten almost the same unanimous support.
2. When al-Queda was in our sights???? Oh, like they were after the USS Cole? Let's face it Bin-Laden has been neutralized, albeit he hasn't been brought to justice yet, but al-Queda was hardly "in our sights" and on the verge of being toppled. (See London, Madrid, Pakistan, Libya, et al) Killing one man was not going to cause al-queda operatives around to world to lay down their arms and ask for peace any suggestion they would is ignorant.
3. I don't know where to begin.....are you a "truther"???? Do you think Bush knew the plan? If the plan was so clear and Clinton told Bush about it, who has more blood on their hands? The one who was in office when it happened or the impeached one who couldnt' get out of office fast enough to avoid it?
4. Bush took an economy to historic prosperity over 6 years and it crumbled in his last two. Coincidently, that's when the Democrats took control of congress....but if that's not enough, the one single thing that all indicator point back to as the cause of the economic collapse was Wall St. trying to make a profit (god forbid!!!) off of TOXIC mortgages. (chicken vs. egg argument) Had the mortgage companies not been forced to write these mortgages, Wall St. wouldnt' have had to come up with a craft way to make money off them. Libs will point to Wall St. as the cause, I point to Main St. for speculating that buying a house you can't afford is a good investment.
5. He did lower taxes on EVERYBODY who paid them....he couldnt' cut programs because he didn't have a line item veto on the congressional budgets. Not cutting programs was a concession to liberals to continue funding the war on terror.
6. Gays in the military.....I could care less because I'm not in the military...but ask a guy (or girl) manning a post on the front line what they want, and then judge how much more effective our military would be if the current policy stayed in place. As I said, I don't have an opinion on this, so I'll leave it to the good men and women who volunteer to fight for our country.
7. While the official GOP stance is "anti-abortion", your logic about being "not pro-life" is weak. Personally, I wish the GOP would adopt a less staunch stance on abortion, but I liken their extreme argument to that of the NRA...if you make one small concession today, you'll make another small concession tomorrow and when all is said and done, you've given up. Even the Dems are torn on the abortion issue and let's face it, nobody really LIKES abortion, but it's a reality we need to contend with. If you LIKE abortions, there's something seriously wrong. But, I'll conceed it's a reality in our society.
8. We'll agree to disagree on what constitutes torture and what valuable info was gained. What I find more disturbing is because someone at GITMO, who was picked up for good cause, is given more rights than the good men and women they wanted to kill. And, now, Amherst MA, the liberal bastion of Massachusetts wants to take in the detainees and support them. Please....
9. "he can't recall" is a lot different than "It depends on what 'is' means" or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", which were lies under oath.....and lead to the impeachment of Clinton.
3.
1 - the issue is that it was a lie - if there was a real argument for going into Iraq it should have been made and let it stand on its own. In essance, I think we agree - tacitly...
2 - my point was the Afghanistan argument - did Clinton mess it up - sure - - but, we targeted Al Queda and then went into Iraq before the job was finished....do you think otherwise?
3 - never impeached, attempt by the right - never completed because the case was too weak. as stated above - Clinton didn't handle it well - but Bush ignored the intelligence - it is in the 9/11 report!
4 - Don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye here. I don't agree with your assessment or data - and it would take hours to compare notes.
5 - sorry - it is a trend of Republican Presidents -the trickle down philosophy is what they use to say that they don't need to cut programs (because it hurts them in elections)---it never trickles down and so the tax base never increases.
6 - C40F handled this one below.
7 - I am not pro-abortion - I am for money spent on abstinence-only policies going to support adoption, I am for better education, I believe that these same men who vote against a women's right - if their daughter or wife were ever raped or a victim of incest - they would have a different view. It is easy to play the tough guy until one's family is touched by it.
8 - more rights - please.....i'll meet you for a weekend - do to you what was done to them - then you tell me if it was torture.
9 - you're kidding right - a president who gets a BJ (and MANY presidents in our history - great presidents have been found to have had affairs) - is comparable to a guy who basically committed an offense that would be considered treason if done by other members of the government?? you really think they are the same????
As for your response in #9, you're missing the point....I could care less what he/she was doing under the desk....what I care about (and what he was impeached over) was the fact that he LIED UNDER OATH...
If I steal a pack of gum from the 7-11, and go to trial and lie under oath, the lying under oath becomes a more egregious crime than stealing the gum! It's an impeachable offense, regardless of how minor the underlying act was.....
Understand your point - but if you don't think that Mr. Cheney lied under oath about - can't recall.....then you are naive and you do not appear to be a naive person....
C2C, when I was in the military, I was much more concerned with the skills of the guys and gals that I relied on to do my job than their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, their sexual orientation was something I don't recall ever giving any thought to.
Seems to me the real question here is not one of "gay rights" per se, as the military is not a laboratory for social experimentation, and a service person does not have the same civil rights that a civilian has.
Rather, the real question is what's in the best interest of the military?
From what I've read here and there over the last few years (sorry, no links here), it seems as if the military has lost a significant number of people with important if not critical skills (e.g., Arabic interpreters) because of Don't Ask/Don't Tell.
Given all the real difficult situations service people have to put up with, I think the vast majority could deal with open gays in their midst with little ot no trouble.
Just my opinion ...
NO employer can ask those questions....so what's the big deal?
I said, I could care less because I only want what's best for the military. I have little or no personal interest vested in their policy.
As for myself, I don't care. Most of the people I know that were kicked out for being gay (some were not gay) outed themselves because at the time it was the quickest and easiest way out.
I think the big deal is, unlike civilian employers, the military must discharge a troop once it finds he/she is gay, even if the troop is outed by someone else. As a result, the military is forced to let some people with critical skills go.
My guess is that after years of DADT, the military (and the country) would be better served as a whole if the policy were simply dropped, and from what I've read and seen on the TV/Internet news, a lot of retired senior military leaders think the same.
Anyhow, this is somewhat off-topic from the letter to the editor that prompted it, so I'll end it at that.
After having digested your's and Lana's thoughts - one can only conclude - "There's no government like no government."
With that said, I think we can all agree, both parties, that we'll call the "system", need some major tweaking or additional competition.
Your obsession with WMDs is a typical democrat ploy to blame Bush for the war. We went into Iraq both times because of the crimes against humanity and attacking surrounding countries. Hussien was tried, convicted and hanged for the crimes against humanity. You cry about the rights of the people in Gitmo but it was ok for Hussien to commit mass genecide?
I have tried to get you to use some rational and common sense thinking but apparently that is beyond your ability. While you claim the Democrats are pro-choice you need to look at the healthcare bill H.R. 3962. You will see that the Democrats say it will not support abortion. You really have no clue what your party represents.
You claim Bush deregulated the banks. He did no such thing. Back in the early 90s the banks were regulated that they could only take 80% mortgage after the housing failure. Clinton and the Democrats pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take 100% mortgage and high risk loans. But the real estate failure is now Bush 's fault. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.
Here is a link that proves to you that Republicans are for limiting women's rights to choose.... http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Par...
The healthcare bill limits money for abortions ONLY because the Democrats are smart enough to recognize that this is a political lynchpin - if it was in there - they would be skewered and it is better to leave support for govt paid abortions out of the bill than risk the bill completely.
If you READ what I wrote - you will see that my issue is that republicans do what is called deficit spending - from a wall st journal article: In fact, of all the presidents in the last fifty years, exactly two of them didn't have deficit spending--Carter and Clinton, neither of whom was a Republican.
Republicans CUT taxes but keep spending levels constants - which means the deficit increases under republican leadership! This article tells the story - Cato is actually a libertarian organization - https://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf
According to you if WNDs were found then the war would not be a lie? It would hve been justified? What about all the mas killing? The Democrats used WMDs to undermine the Republicans Just like you are doing. You forget we were not the only country there fighting.
Your mentality is like sueing the guy for planting a tree that you hit with your car.
Look - I agree - the Democrats have issues with raising taxes and unnecessarily increasing govt spending by expanding programs to support people those programs were never meant to support - then they raise taxes to pay for it.
You seem to think republicans are responsible caretakers - THEIR policy is to deficit spend - - they believe that by cutting taxes - the tax base of payers will increase - - BUT, it has yet to truly pay off - so, what happens is that the deficit increases under republican administrations. Check the Cato link - I promise you - they are not a left wing group - and do a good job of explaining how republicans are irresponsible with handling the deficit.
he said NO. That was your real #3. It was Clinton that could have had him 3 years before 9/11.
He was sitting out in the open there. Bush got the remainder of Clinton's economy that was tanking as the election was going on. Whomever won (Bush or Gore) was walking into all the lies that Clinton and friends did to keep the economy robust the last 4 years of him. Remember Erronn, World Com ???
Whatever torture they did it kept them off of our land and when they come back you'll be begging for some extra justice for them.
What is the meaning of "IS", ask Bill.
As far as banks crashing you never heard of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank ??
Wow sheltered life you must have.
Enron and World Com were not Clinton debacles - they were a bunch of crooks who basically lied and used the system to hide their deeds. How on earth is that Clinton's fault?? It is like saying that Madoff is Bush's fault.....Those companies crashed because they cooked the books. Please - don't lecture me about a sheltered life when your examples aren't even relevant to the discussion!
And if you believe that this is a country that should torture its prisoners - then you belong somewhere else. We are a civilized society - we are better than that. The people who support it are just angry men who watch too much TV! Pull yourself away from '24' - it is hollywood - not real life.
On the "is" - i mean honestly, grow up - there are a string of president's through history that are great presidents that we found were not quite the perfect souls history shows them to be.
Banks crashing = deregulation. I already admitted that a contributing factor was fannie and freddie laws - deregulation allowed them to run out of control. To the point that they didn't even need to hide from the system (like enron) - and this is the final straw.
Get off the surfboard - read some educated materials and don't throw stones - stick to the facts.
I believe that you are using facts - and I have a table full of facts that would also bear out my comments. I think, in the end, even economists don't really agree and so there is no true 'root cause'. The right will raise their data - the left theirs....i think the only thing we might agree on - is that the middle class is losing out. I see that throughout decision making - the squeeze is always on the middle....
Hello Pot.....meet kettle!