Lets see...a rich, powerful man gets a blow job and that's immoral, but his replacement sends poor young men to war under false pretenses but really to increase his family's oil wealth, and that's not immoral? I, for one, encourage blow jobs and discourage senseless death. I support going after those who attacked this country, not lashing out at non-participants in such an atrocity just to get the democrats off your back for stealing an election. BTW I'm not a democrat, and did not vote for CLinton either time.
So George Bush sent the US army to Iraq to increase his family's oil wealth and to wag the dog after the 'stolen' election? C'mon you can do better than that. And on Clinton's blow job. He got it from someone who was working for him, isn't that against the law? Didn't he lie to a federal grand jury about it?
yeah, and he planted WMD's so we could find them too! Oh, wait a minute, he didn't do that, I wonder why...
Boy, oh, boy, just one day away and this thing grows by two full pages (at the maximum page size it lets me set). MysterySquid asks why don't I just move to Canada? Because of all the people like MysterySquid (more than I can count) throughout my life who keep telling me that if I don't agree with them I should leave the country. This is a great place to live if you have money (and I do). But I'm keeping my options open, and if I decide I don't like Spokane, after I've been here a while, I might move up to B.C. When I lived in ND it was primarily the (slightly) colder temperatures in Winnipeg that prevented me from moving up there. Winnipeg is a wonderful, multi-cultural city. But when it's 30 below zero you don't feel like going where it's 35 below. BUT HERE'S WHAT I REALLY WANT TO ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION: What ever happened to fiscal responsibility??? The Republicans used to clamor for fiscal responsibility, and the balanced budget amendment was their idea. Ronald Reagan campaigned on fiscal responsibility and promised to balance the budget. Instead, he gave us the biggest deficit and the biggest national debt we had ever had up to that point, and since then, if the Democrats were previously the party of tax-and-spend, the Republicans have been the party of borrow-and-spend, and have sold us out to the international moneylenders, mortgaging our future to finance their wars for oil. It was Clinton (for all his faults) who balanced the budget (by crippling social programs). I propose the following: Automatic tax hikes to balance the budget, plus 10% more until the national debt is paid off. You want America to be strong? There is nothing weaker than a debtor! Let the crooks in Washington (by which I refer to both parties) spend what they want, or not, but make them pay for it with taxes automatically adjusted to the money spent, and let them pay for it at the polls. Borrowing to meet current expenses is not conservative, it's just profligate. And leaving that debt to the next generation is theft. The present crop of so-called conservatives are not conservatives at all. They are just plain thieves! And once countries like Japan and China (yes, China!) decide to stop buying U.S. Treasury bills and bonds, our entire economy is going to collapse like a house of cards. And we're at their mercy until we pay off our national debt. And the only way to do that is to pay taxes to pay for the profligate spending of the crooks in office (and I repeat that I refer to both parties, as both are equally responsible: W. is the guy in the White House, but the Democrats have supported both his wars and his tax cuts for the super-rich). Fooey! I've spent far too much time on this!
I would support cutting spending by 10% per year until balanced, if you increased taxes by that much per year I think the economy would collapse even before the Japanese or Chinese cause it to collapse.
No one is telling you anything. Judging from some of the stuff you've written, you seem relatively unhappy. No one wants to be unhappy right? I did want to point out one thing though, the line "great place to live if you have the money".... funny. The U.S. is one of the few BEST places to live in the world if you DON'T have money. If there's any country I'd want to be poor in, it's the U.S.. As a matter of fact, the reality of it is completely contradictory to your statement. Those that have money, the super-super wealthly, tend to avoid the U.S. for tax and other purposes. Of course, they do give up the safety and security of one of the most (if not the only) thorough legal and financial system on the planet which allows you recourse. Not all countries allow you to sue their equivalent of the IRS should you have a gripe.
hmm, I wonder if you're thinking about Japan... Do you think THEY have roughly the same thing, or an even better system? B)
Please be patient with us. This is an important and necessary discussion that in many ways has been going on for 200 years. We could do with less sarcasm and insults, but so long as we're discussing the issues and not calling each other names, I would hope we'd be permitted to continue.
I kinda have to wonder, where in the world, other than maybe a handful I can think of, is a person who is, indigent, better off (or at least equivalent)?
