Very unfortunate
Posted By: A.Nonymous on 2009-04-15
In Reply to: Not what I'm seeing... - TechSupport
that Central Ohio is gray, cold and rainy today. Yeah, I know weather shouldn't matter if you really believe, but I would be much more likely to attend if I didn't have to risk getting drenched.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
How unfortunate. I really do not think Mel is an sm
anti-semite. Much of what his father says is taken out of context. He writes and speaks a lot about the globalists and New World Order. He is anti-Zionism. True Torah Jews are not Zionists. Wolfowitz, Kristol, Perle, etc., true owners of the Federal Reserve are Zionists, and they are VERY powerful. They run most of Hollywood. Here is a link to explain that:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
There is an unfortunate truth
for Democrats regarding the Clinton presidency: President Reagan's policies worked. Reaganomics -- which posited and proved that cutting taxes made more money available to the private sector to increase employment, thus increasing the total wages available to be taxed, even at a lower rate -- did increase absolute funding. And -- through a strong defensive posture that does not back down, the top heavy controlling political systems of the enemies of freedom will finally collapse because of the waste of resources that such a tightly-controlled economy (through the subsequent increase in bureaucrats (who, by there very nature, produce nothing in the economy)) leads to. Having said that, the following series of events actually have resulted in what you accurately described, but have misapplied cause and effect. To wit --
Reaganomics resulted in an increase in capital investment which provided jobs, which allowed more citizens to have more disposable income and the government to have more monies available, which the Republican president spent on common causes -- defense of the homeland from belligerent nations, infrastructure repair and increasing resource availability. This resulted in a surplus of moving capital in the economy and the government coffers. Some of this was spent on the Gulf War where Bush 41 turned back an aggressive nation from attacking another one (consider Germany rolling over Poland and Western Europe for a similar situation). Having accepted terms of cease fire we settled into a period of time relatively free of conflict. Then we changed horses in mid stream and Bill Clinton took office, failed to pursue terrorist organizations, dismantled our spy network, withdrew our support from rebels in Iraq and ignored a growing terrorist threat that we knew little about because he had dismantled our spy network by issuing orders that no CIA agent was to enlist the aid of unsavory characters. However, anyone a spy agency turned to spy for them is, by definitition, an unsavory character. So, when Clinton turned his attention to the domestic front (as liberals prefer to do) and ignoring the foreign front (as liberals also prefer to do) he proceeded to spend what was left from the Reagan coffers. Not going into the 1992 slap Clinton was given for pushing his brand of socialism down America's collective throat, essentially, left George Bush with an enemy which had a blank check for 8 years to do what they wanted without being watched. We should not be so surprised by 9/11 as it would at first appear. Following 9/11 and the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan, Bush 43 went to war with Iraq. There has been much discussion about this, but the way I see it is there were three factors that made this war completely justified -- 1) Saddam Hussein had already used WMD in his war with Iran and his suppression of the Kurds; 2) He was a known financial supporter for terrorists worldwide, especially in Israel and 3) what I believe to be the most important one -- the Gulf War was not legally over in that Hussein had never surrendered, he had merely accepted terms for a cease fire. However, he did not live up to his agreement, so the war had to be restarted.
In summary, then, republicans watching the foreign front (and I will grant you, ignoring the domestic front, mostly) increased the public coffers; democrats (focusing on the domestic front and ignoring the foreign front) pursued policies that left us blind to foreign intrigue while spending the largesse from the previous administration's more fiscally responsible domestic program which left the next conservative President without good intelligence and with depleted public coffers. There is so much money going into Washington that the delay between the policies that increase or diminish and the development of the actual increase or depletion can be 4 to 8 years. That's how I see it.
I too think it was a PERSONAL matter. It's unfortunate that the
republicans would stop at NOTHING to drag Bill Clinton through any kind of mud at any cost to the country down to whos blowing him.
This is an unfortunate email rumor that is actually a hoax
nm
This is an unfortunate circumstance and sad, my thoughts go to his family -
It's sad whenever anyone has an affair no matter who it is or what party they belong to. We all know democrats have their fair share too. Am sure we can name as many crats as republicans who have had affairs. It's sad that this happens to any family and surely nothing to be happy about because it happened to someone in the party that one doesn't support.
However, his having an affair does not change my viewpoints about what he stands for in his political career. He is still one of the good guys and stands up for what is right and what is good for the American people. His ideas are good and him having an affair doesn't change how I feel about what he has done in his political life.
We should all leave his personal life alone (especially since the crats didn't want to discuss John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Daniel Inouye, Fred Richmond, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.)
You cannot say one is better than the other because one of them "might" have run for President (especially when it had not been decided that Sanford was going to be chosen as the next candidate- and funny how last week everyone here was talking as though Ensign was the running candidate - none of that had been decided yet), however, Edwards actually was chosen and was running for VP and President, and even Clinton, the President himself.
Some comments I read on different sites were...
Democrats cherish anything that focuses off Obama's failures as a President. Very pathetic if you ask me.
Liberalism is a disease that destroys brain cells due to the ingestion of kool aid. Thus, they are forced to forget about their own idiotic and stupid leaders and focus their hate and anger on anyone that disagrees with them
I know! Republicans are humans, and they make mistakes just like everyone but what defines them is how they apologize (hence we forget Clinton's pathetic excuse and attempt to apologize).
When Republicans have an affair, the Democrats scream "They must be held accountable and resign." When Democrats have an affair, they go through a media circus, but all is forgiven and they stay in office.
Lots of interesting other comments but way to many to post.
|
