kallend 2,106
Lucky... 0
I easily could, but the topic matter is defined by:
List your main objections to Hillary Clinton
I don't object, I'm waiting for objectors taht have substance.
Amazon 7
Please don't give me some trickle down BS.
DUDE.. havent you seen.. the righties.. would rather just trickle ON... the poor... our rights...etc.
mnealtx 0
As opposed to running drugs through Mena, I suppose...
Thank you for making my point. Wealth is NOT only achieved by hard work and talent, contrary to the statement made above. And equally, the poor are NOT all lazy talentless bums.
Of course, the OP in your quote *did* say "only achieved honestly through hard work... "
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I easily could, but the topic matter is defined by:
List your main objections to Hillary Clinton
I don't object, I'm waiting for objectors taht have substance.
Since her handlers make sure she avoids taking a stand on most issues and she avoids any questions of substance, I have no opinion on her yet.
-
Gawain 0
So the net result of all of this from a substantive measure is that you dislike her socialized medicine plan. OK, Congress and the people disagreed, so it didn't and won't pass, so it's a non-issue.
Substance???? Give me a reason(s) that you think would make her a bad pres.
It's not a non-issue, it is still part of her politics.http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/Healthcare/
She falls into the stereotype of "tax and spend". Only allowing targeted tax relief. I disagree with that kind of direction from government. It creates an artificial sense of ownership by the government, when in fact, it is the other way around.
Her positions are nothing new. It's not necessarily rhetoric nor is it ground-breaking, whether it be education, homeland security, or the environment. The framework looks good, but she hasn't introduced anything new for nearly three years as a Senator. Her ideas are not fresh.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Royd 0
Those of us who choose to succeed by using our God given talents, and who recognize that personal wealth is only acheived honestly through hard work,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, you missed the key word in that passage. Honestly.Well, it can be obtained like GWB obtained his - inherited from Grandaddy's dealings with the Nazis, no work or talent required.
Lucky... 0
So the net result of all of this from a substantive measure is that you dislike her socialized medicine plan. OK, Congress and the people disagreed, so it didn't and won't pass, so it's a non-issue.
Substance???? Give me a reason(s) that you think would make her a bad pres.
It's not a non-issue, it is still part of her politics.http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/Healthcare/
She falls into the stereotype of "tax and spend". Only allowing targeted tax relief. I disagree with that kind of direction from government. It creates an artificial sense of ownership by the government, when in fact, it is the other way around.
Her positions are nothing new. It's not necessarily rhetoric nor is it ground-breaking, whether it be education, homeland security, or the environment. The framework looks good, but she hasn't introduced anything new for nearly three years as a Senator. Her ideas are not fresh.
The problem with your theory of tax-n-spend is that during the Clinton years the debt went from 45 degrees, graphically, to horizontal. Then, as your hero took office, it turned steeper than 45 degrees. There are 18 years of Reagan/Bush/Bush and they are responsible for 70% of the historical US debt, while all the Clintons did was to turn it around. Your arguments carry no evidence in application. Show me where the Clinton's fucked the economy.
The Clintons' raised taxes on the rich and curtailed spending, especially military spending. Social programs were funded and people were much happier. Reagan/Bush/Bush cut taxes and increaed spending. Can you refute any of these arguments? Can you establish how the US was healthier under the 3 stooges? Show me empirical proof/evidence.
kallend 2,106
Those of us who choose to succeed by using our God given talents, and who recognize that personal wealth is only acheived honestly through hard work,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Apparently, you missed the key word in that passage. Honestly.Well, it can be obtained like GWB obtained his - inherited from Grandaddy's dealings with the Nazis, no work or talent required.
So you're saying that George W. Bush came by his wealth dishonestly. OK, I can agree with that.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Gawain 0
The Clintons' raised taxes on the rich and curtailed spending, especially military spending. Social programs were funded and people were much happier. Reagan/Bush/Bush cut taxes and increaed spending. Can you refute any of these arguments? Can you establish how the US was healthier under the 3 stooges? Show me empirical proof/evidence.
This is a common misconception, spending has never, never gone down, under any President. One area where President Bush has succeeded is slowing the growth of overall spending, but it still grows.
President Clinton policies encouraged and resulted in massive export of manufacturing and basic service sector jobs. The interest rate hikes did not slow down the rate of inflation or the expenditure of VC funding into the dot-com bubble. It was easy for Clinton to balance the budget, he slashed defense spending, cut our military strength below any realignment goals set by President G.H.W. Bush. President Clinton didn't have a Cold War, Gulf War to fight, and he chose to limit his response to repeated attacks by terrorists from the middle east.
Fact, the economy has grown at rates faster, and in sectors vital to the foundation of the economy under Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush (final two quarters of his term), and G.W. Bush.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
She has a striking resemblance to Mrs. Iselin.
Yes. I find that scary.
Yes. I find that scary.
I don't like her hair. 
Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...
Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...
jcd11235 0
I have a hard time believing that, as recently as she was (a very active) First Lady, that she actually believed that Iraq posed a threat to the US, yet she voted to authorize use of force there as a Senator.
This bothers me even more since I realize that the US enforced "No Fly Zones" were illegal and not authorized by the UN.
This bothers me even more since I realize that the US enforced "No Fly Zones" were illegal and not authorized by the UN.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Lucky... 0
The Clintons' raised taxes on the rich and curtailed spending, especially military spending. Social programs were funded and people were much happier. Reagan/Bush/Bush cut taxes and increaed spending. Can you refute any of these arguments? Can you establish how the US was healthier under the 3 stooges? Show me empirical proof/evidence.
This is a common misconception, spending has never, never gone down, under any President. One area where President Bush has succeeded is slowing the growth of overall spending, but it still grows.
President Clinton policies encouraged and resulted in massive export of manufacturing and basic service sector jobs. The interest rate hikes did not slow down the rate of inflation or the expenditure of VC funding into the dot-com bubble. It was easy for Clinton to balance the budget, he slashed defense spending, cut our military strength below any realignment goals set by President G.H.W. Bush. President Clinton didn't have a Cold War, Gulf War to fight, and he chose to limit his response to repeated attacks by terrorists from the middle east.
Fact, the economy has grown at rates faster, and in sectors vital to the foundation of the economy under Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush (final two quarters of his term), and G.W. Bush.
It was easy for Clinton to balance the budget, he slashed defense spending, cut our military strength below any realignment goals set by President G.H.W. Bush.
I'm going to post this by itself, as I don't want it lost in the shuffle of the rest of my answer to your post. Questions:
1) Is it a bad thing to cut troop numbers?
2) Is it a bad thing to close bases?
3) If a president inherits a depleted military, especially troop-wise, is it prudent to build them up immediately?
Pls answer those 3.
Andy9o8 2
I don't like her hair.
Probably the most intellectually honest "reason" in the entire thread.
Seriously.
Gawain 0
I'm going to post this by itself, as I don't want it lost in the shuffle of the rest of my answer to your post. Questions:
1) Is it a bad thing to cut troop numbers?
Yes and No. Following the Cold War, plans to pare back the armed services were made. They were moderate, but noticeable. President Clinton accelerated this under a false pretense of "living in peacetime", one example, the US Army was cut from 22 divisions to 10, over 50%, and in the face of continued, deliberate attacks on US assets. Even following the Gulf War, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Powell, noted that under G.H.W.Bush, they issued at executed over 40 military deployments and operations. President Clinton left our armed services horribly undermanned, he had no appreciation for the men and women in uniform. Ask any soldier, seaman, airman or Marine who's been around for a while.
2) Is it a bad thing to close bases?
Again, Yes and No. Under the current realignment and expansion, instead of opening new bases, or creating new divisions, they are expanding the current base load and increasing current divisions by a whole brigade. However, some of the closures being recommended by BRAC are ill advised in my opinion, for example: Walter Reed Army Medical Center is due to close in 2011. This is a mistake and I hope there is another review which will preserve the post.
3) If a president inherits a depleted military, especially troop-wise, is it prudent to build them up immediately?
Yes. President Bush new that our military had been devastated from within and was in desperate need of an infusion of equipment and men. It was one of his primary campaign issues during 2000.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Lucky... 0
The Clintons' raised taxes on the rich and curtailed spending, especially military spending. Social programs were funded and people were much happier. Reagan/Bush/Bush cut taxes and increaed spending. Can you refute any of these arguments? Can you establish how the US was healthier under the 3 stooges? Show me empirical proof/evidence.
This is a common misconception, spending has never, never gone down, under any President. One area where President Bush has succeeded is slowing the growth of overall spending, but it still grows.
President Clinton policies encouraged and resulted in massive export of manufacturing and basic service sector jobs. The interest rate hikes did not slow down the rate of inflation or the expenditure of VC funding into the dot-com bubble. It was easy for Clinton to balance the budget, he slashed defense spending, cut our military strength below any realignment goals set by President G.H.W. Bush. President Clinton didn't have a Cold War, Gulf War to fight, and he chose to limit his response to repeated attacks by terrorists from the middle east.
Fact, the economy has grown at rates faster, and in sectors vital to the foundation of the economy under Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush (final two quarters of his term), and G.W. Bush.
This is a common misconception, spending has never, never gone down, under any President.
Then the spending must have been more prudent under Clinton, as he turned the massive increase of the debt into a flat arc, then Bush turned it upward even steeper than when Clinton left it.
I don't have a graph of gov spending, and I don;t think it neccessary to investigate that, but this seems to be a case where the ends justify the means as 3 presidents with similar fiscal protocol get similar results, while the 1 with a different appraoch gets a much different result. Supply-side economics worl real well, that is for the suppliers. Consumers side, as I call it, works well for all, as producers made a crap load of cash then too. This, 'Hoover' / "Reaganomics' are tired, why can't people see that while continuously staying selectively blind to the score, the national debt?
One area where President Bush has succeeded is slowing the growth of overall spending, but it still grows.
This is incomplete, which area? As for Bush's spending growing, YA THINK???? Is that the moot statement of the year, or what?
President Clinton policies encouraged and resulted in massive export of manufacturing and basic service sector jobs.
Yes, Clinton and GHW Bush's NAFTA sucked. Bush Jr continued the trend. Thsi would have occurred regardless of who was in office, but I don;t absolve Clinton for signing that. Actually we have been trading with Canada and Mexico for decades, all this was was a lift of taxes for corps, so I would think you would love that.
The interest rate hikes did not slow down the rate of inflation or the expenditure of VC funding into the dot-com bubble.
Actually Clinton/Greenspan lowered the interest rate, as he inherited 8-9%, and it was used to control the interest rate, quite well.
It was easy for Clinton to balance the budget...
Yes, he immediately raised taxes for the rich via the 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill, cut spending, especially to military where we were wayyyyyy overspending. BTW, do you realize we military spend as much as the rest of the world combined?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
It's just as easy for Bush to trash the budget, he even has the blessing of his Repub Congress.
President Clinton didn't have a Cold War, Gulf War to fight, and he chose to limit his response to repeated attacks by terrorists from the middle east.
Yes, we all know that OBL gained his steam from the Gulf War when Saudi Arabia told OBL to fuck off and revoked his passport, that enraged OBL at the US. Right, we see what happens when you counterattack, we have the mes we now have, another Viet Nam. Clinton, like the coward now in office, both ran from Viet Nam, the difference is that Bush has no issue with sending other people to their death for domestic political gain.
So CLinton realized that upping the ante only results in the other side upping too, so diplomacy is a better approach, as well as homeland protections, ie. not selling ports to the Arabs.
Fact, the economy has grown at rates faster, and in sectors vital to the foundation of the economy under Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush (final two quarters of his term), and G.W. Bush.
I don't know what obscure measure you're using, but as for the little people, life has sucked under the 3 dicators you posted, life was so much better under Clinton. Tuition has doubled under Bush at my local university, is that due to cuts in fed univ assistance? I dunno, but it is likely.
The front end of this low interest rate is that houses are easy to buy and then they double in price as the sellers see that it is too easy for buyers, then the crash, like a pyramid scheme. The outcome: many foreclosures, BK's and corps making tons of cash. Basically this so-called boom is a result of a bad economy, it wasn't a good thing.
Lucky... 0
I have a hard time believing that, as recently as she was (a very active) First Lady, that she actually believed that Iraq posed a threat to the US, yet she voted to authorize use of force there as a Senator.
This bothers me even more since I realize that the US enforced "No Fly Zones" were illegal and not authorized by the UN.
Of course that was after being spoon-fed cherry picked intelligence by Bush.
Lucky... 0
2nd the motion. There are no good reasons to hate her other than partisan politics without substance.
I have a hard time believing that, as recently as she was (a very active) First Lady, that she actually believed that Iraq posed a threat to the US, yet she voted to authorize use of force there as a Senator.
This bothers me even more since I realize that the US enforced "No Fly Zones" were illegal and not authorized by the UN.
Of course that was after being spoon-fed cherry picked intelligence by Bush.
If I believed that, which I don't, that would make her a hapless dupe. Now the question is would I vote for someone so easily fooled. If Bush was able to do it, how easily would Kim Jong Il, Amenajihaad etc. be able to dupe her?
JohnnyD 0
I don't like her hair.
As trivial as that may sound on the surface, it does carry a lot of weight. I think it is representative of the intersection of the many groups that will be swayed to not vote for H Clinton for whatever reason they hold to be important. When too many of those groups intersect, a candidate become unelectable.
As opposed to running drugs through Mena, I suppose...
Thank you for making my point. Wealth is NOT only achieved by hard work and talent, contrary to the statement made above. And equally, the poor are NOT all lazy talentless bums.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.