Jump to content
Add An Community Event to KOTW's Calendar Click to Learn More

Autonomous

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    157

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Autonomous

  1. 20 Years

    in Kearny

    Posted

    He's bright, articulate, smart, educated, experienced in big government, has a track record of lowering taxes and cutting crime and is a moderate republican.

        In other words, he's everything Hilliary and Osamabama isn't.

    He's also a flip-flopper on abortion and gay marriage. As mayor, he attempted to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with their products. His Bracewell and Giuliani firm has lobbied for stem cell research. Also lobbied for Citgo-owned by the socialist-leaning government of Hugo Chavez.

  2. Democratic Bumper Stickers for 2008

    in Kearny

    Posted

    The person you were responding to was me, btw.

    I do give Clinton some credit, there--but if his original "Clintonomics" notions had been put into law along with Hillarycare, it is unlikely that a balanced budget would have resulted.

    The government shutdown had little to do with balancing the budget.  Clinton did not refuse to sign the budget because it was not fiscally responsible enough, but because the Republicans wanted to cut government spending too much:

    President Bill Clinton: Good afternoon. Today, as of noon, almost half of the federal government employees are idle. The government is partially shutting down because Congress has failed to pass the straightforward legislation necessary to keep the government running without imposing sharp hikes in Medicare premiums and deep cuts in education and the environment.

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-1...ts/clinton.html

    Hillarycare certainly would have been bad. It still will if the Democrats keep control of Congress and capture the White House. I think I'll be splitting my vote this time.

    Drastically cutting government spending is a good long-term plan. I believe it needs to be done gradually though.

    The problem with our current view of cutting welfare is that we need to rethink how we allocate it. Back in my college days I bought a floor scrubber and buffer and got a contract to clean a local grocery store. One of the guys there had a severe form of degenerative arthritis. He had to be careful not to work too many hours or he would lose Medicare-and his medicine was nearly $1000 a month. Because he couldn't work full-time, he also needed Food Stamps and housing assistance, draining the economy even more. Whenever welfare was cut, they'd lower the amount you could make and still draw benefits, so he'd have to work even less. Meanwhile, fatass meth-heads sit on there butts all day and do better than he did. It seems that you get punished for trying to get off welfare. If we had a system that would allow people to work full time until they were eligible for health insurance people like my friend could get off of it.

    You'd have a tough time finding good examples prior to Carter, IMHO.  We're in agreement that each president with a role in combating terrorism could have done better.

    During the Cold War we had a history of supporting guys like Shah Reza whatsisname. This policy kinda bit us on the ass.

    I don't think the 9-11 Commission was sure about it, either.

    The final report should have contained some acknowledgment of Clinton's testimony on the matter, and the Clinton speech I referenced should have made it inevitable that Clinton was asked about it during the investigation.

    Why Clinton would talk about it years later as if it had happened should produce questions if the truth was that the offer wasn't legit.  Why would Clinton continue to talk about it as if it had been legitimate?

    True. I have no idea what really happened, and neither does anyone else. It was originally brought up as a slam against Clinton-which assumes the worst.

  7. Wating for 2smart to answer.

    in Kearny

    Posted

    How about a clever reply from you explaining your supposed Viet Nam service and how you supposedly retired rather than go to Iraq ??

    Oh for crying out loud-I'm only 31. You and 2dim claimed to have fought in Vietnam, not me. I fought in Iraq. My ETS date came up while I was over there. I didn't re-up so I wouldn't have to go back, so when I got back I got out. I didn't retire-that takes 20 years of service. I was honorably discharged at end of service.

×
×
  • Create New...