OT...Don't like politics or war...don't click!

What terrorists did Clinton catch?

Just because Bin Laden hasn't been caught that must mean Bush #2 has not caught terrorists.

On another note,

I have talked to several soldiers that were in Iraq (a couple in the middle of the fight) and surprisingly they have all been in favor of what we are doing over there now. They might not have agreed with the way things were going at the beginning but they truly believe we are doing what is right by being in Iraq.

They also tell a different story than our mainstream media. One even told me the reporters on the front lines would search only for the "eye catching" stories rather than reporting the good things. I know the soldiers I have talked to are very critical and dissappointed by the media

Plummer, I really like your responses and how you kept from name calling (which happens in most "debates") even though I do not agree with everything you posted.
 
Republicans favor the wealthy, and Democrats stood up for everybody else. did you ever see a poor hire hundreds of people if the dems tax us more kingeddy that would mean less money in our pocket to buy king Edwards chickens:D:D
 
theplummer said:
I'm sorry for you to have had to be on welfare, that must have been a tough time for you, although I do not know the circumstances that put you in that place.

I'm being accused of being a heartless Republican by King Eddie. Now seems an appropriate time to give my republican views on this issue. I don't know if these are truely republican ideas or just mine, though they do have a conservative approach:

It is my belief that EVERY Legal Citizen of the United States of America is entitled to a JOB. If a citizen cannot find one in the private sector, one shall be made available to them in the public sector, where they can be trained On-the-Job, and given, not only a paycheck, but self esteem, and worth. If that citizen chooses not to be a productive part of society, they can drop out and not receive anything, or be fired for non-performance and not receive anything, until they desire productivity, their choice.

I believe this should extend beyond welfare, to also include Un-employment. I believe that if a person is unemployed for a short period of time, or extended time, he or she can (at their choice) choose to set at home for a vacation, without pay. Or, show up on Monday morning at a state employment distribution site to be assigned to a specific job placement during their time of Un-employment. I believe this must be done in order to collect a unemployment check. I do not believe ANYONE should be receiving ANY money for no effort. If this were implimented, you'd be amazed how the unemployment rate would plummit, drug abuse would decrease, and amazingly enough, people with children would have the ability to pay for their daycare,preschool, or whatever that person chooses to do with it. This policy would ultimately put money back in the coffers to be utilized somewhere else.

I will be 41 years old this year. I've been on a payroll every week of my life since 11 years old. Either someone elses payroll, or my own, but I've been there. I've NEVER collected one single unemployment check in my life, though I have had numerous opportunities to collect, but instead I went out and found work when needed. I don't expect any more from anyone than I expect from myself.

Remember who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".

Imagine that, a Republican quoting a democrat.
Click to expand...

I worked 40 hours a week making 7.00 an hour to keep food on the table for my 3 kids. After the bills were paid including the babysitter while I worked I was lucky to have money left over to by gas to get to work. With no support from there father who the state refused to go after cause he was in another state and still need the help of the state to live. Just cause people have money doesn't mean they can afford preschool at 150 a week per kid.
 
jh11zracefan said:
I worked 40 hours a week making 7.00 an hour to keep food on the table for my 3 kids. After the bills were paid including the babysitter while I worked I was lucky to have money left over to by gas to get to work. With no support from there father who the state refused to go after cause he was in another state and still need the help of the state to live. Just cause people have money doesn't mean they can afford preschool at 150 a week per kid.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm sorry for your situation. I agree the state did not do what was necessary to help you get what you deserved from your children's father. If thier father has abandoned your children, he needs to be sentenced to a strech in the county jail, with work release rights. Then all of his paycheck can be given to you, as he doesn't need any money. The county can feed and cloth him until he decides that his children are the most important thing in his life.

But please tell me how you could justify state run preschool. It would be a good thing in your situation, but that's a mighty expensive pill to swallow to provide services for all children, when only a small percentage actually would benifit from it. In fact, there is a state run preschool. I have two children who went to my local elementary school for preschool. Mine received services through the state as they were determined to have a deficiency, one in speech and one slightly behavorial. Both, were supplied by the state, free of charge, and both received excellent services. Both have since been released as having accomplished their goals.

But, there is a large amount of effort on the parents also. The preschool is not an all day school. There are two classes per day. 8am to 11am and 11:30 to 2:30. Your preschool child is not allowed to be on premises except for school time, and your child is not allowed to ride a school bus. My second child was in a class with other children that did not qualify for services and they pay a weekly fee to the school district for the preschool.

So, Unless you want to work a evening or night shift, I don't think this would work for a person in your situation, as you probably need daycare. My oldest had daycare and received similar schooling. Not like a typical babysitter. There are choices out there.

Exactly how much help do you need? Did you inquire with your local church for help? How about AFDC, and WIC? Also, did you bother to try to contact an attorney to take your case civil court Pro Bono (attorney's are required to donate a percentage of their services to those in need). All states except Hawaii and California are compact states and are required to conduct extradition of criminals. There must be some hitch or loop hole that as a reason the state will not go after the father of your children. If not, you have a violation of civil rights against the prosecuting county in your case.

Even beyond the above listed options, you still have two more. One is either work more hours, that equals more money (but the sacrificing of the time with your children may outweigh this option) or strive for a better paying job.

Good luck to you in collecting what's due to you from your children's father.
 
So, you don't care if they are a wealthy country or not, but you accuse me of being a bleeding heart democrat. Yet you want to save a wealthy country from a tyrrant.

Pot...kettle black..........refute that.

people like you are the reason this country is suffering the misery we are experiencing now.


And again more REPUBLICAN rhetoric in your response to Jennifer..... I'm sorry about you situation, but su*ck it up and deal with it. Very nice response. Ask someone else like your church, or help yourself, rather than your government who should help our citizens first, other countries second. Yet another reason I'm a democrat.
 
Things are not as black and white as you may think they are. Yes there are problems with the system. I was on everything and can't work more hours when there isn't day care in the evening. Most close at 6pm. Hard to get a higher education with no money or day care. Yes I know there are grants but when there is no daycare in the evening you don't have that option.

Now back to the preschool. Lets say you send your child to preschool and I don't they end up in the same kindgarden (sp?) class. Your child now has a head start at her education and mine doesn't cause you could afford to send your child and I couldn't. Is that fair to my child? Is it fair to your child to sit in class and relearn things she/he learned in preschool?

Now if we had universal preschool who knows how it would work they might make it a half day or full day who knows. They may or may not have transportion for the children who knows. I see nothing wrong with giving every child the same opertonity (sp?) at education no matter how rich or poor the family is. Remember a child didn't ask to be born to a rich or poor family and it is not the childs fault that the family is rich or poor.
 
The raising of taxes caused the depression. There is not nearly enuff being done to keep fathers responsible for kids. The laws the democrats instilled has broken up the american family. I have 2 nephews in Iraq and they also tell me a different story than the liberal media. One of them is doing his 3rd tour. I disagreed with going into Iraq as well as many other of Bush 2's policies, but I also believe something had to be done. I would have put the troops on our borders and stopped the drugs, illegals, and terrorists but the democrats that supported the war would have never voted for that.
 
President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:
-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Robert Oakley, Regan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."


yeah,, Clinton was bad...eh? Go ahead, GOOGLE any of the HR bills and see who defeated them.
 
jh11zracefan said:
With no support from there father who the state refused to go after cause he was in another state and still need the help of the state to live. Just cause people have money doesn't mean they can afford preschool at 150 a week per kid.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is more important to go to another self suffiicient county (without UN backing) , involve ourselves in a war to make our cronies and cohorts rich, ignore the problems at home, rather than take care of our own problems first...because we can't make a dime off of our own problems.


king
 
Plummer, You keep posting but all I hear is typical, chronical, moronical BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. It's more of the same, it doesn't make sense, and no one is buying it. You accused me of something, and now you are doing the same.


king
 
Got that right King. One thing I hate more then any thing is when I'm watching tv and one of those commercials come on with the kids from some other country begging you for money to help them. I just want to yell at the tv what about the starving and dying kids in the U.S.A.

If what is wrong in the U.S.A then fix other country's problems.
 
yeah,, Clinton was bad...eh?[/QUOTE]YES, the giant ****ing sound of NAFTA comes to mind and the tech bubble burst shortly BEFORE Clinton left office sending the economy in a downward spiral. No doubt Clinton did some good things to, I would never paint anyone with a "large brush" Everyone has some good and bad, to say otherwise would be "blindly following" That is why I don't like to say I am republican, I am conservative. I would rather make an informed decision about each candidate.
 
Plummers got more answers than Carter has "little liver pills". Unfortunately too many REPUBLICANS think the same way.... Its too bad non of his answers holds any water or makes any sense. If they did we wouldn't be in the mess were currenlty in.


king
 
Your not informed!!!!!! Perhaps you and "THEPLUMMER" need a pipe cleaning.

You better go back and look into who passed NAFTA......according to WWW.SENATE.ORG (a reputable nonpartisan source) NAFTA voting in Congress went like this. (don't beleive me? see for yourself...GOOGLE "NAFTA VOTING RECORD" and select the link to Senate.org)

77% of the "yea" votes came from REPUBLICAN congressman. 61% of all REPUBLICANS who voted...voted to pass the bill

73% of the "nay" votes came from DEMOCRATIC congressman. More than 50% of DEMOCRATIC congressman who voted, voted against the bill.

NOW....WHO'S RESPONSIBLE???????????????????????? Go ahead, you can say it,,,we all already know!!!!!!!! But who keeps saying it was the democrats fault??????????

Plummer, can you answer that one? You seem to have all the other answers....lets hear what you have to say about NAFTA.....REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATS....WHO'S FAULT WAS THIS????????


And how is the "TECH BUBBLE BURST" Clintons fault? REMINDS ME OF THIS FAMOUS QUOTE:

"Most investors are "Sheeple", meaning that they jump from one "hot" investment after it's already boomed, effectively "buying high", then selling off when the "hot tip" cools off, effectively "Cutting your losses". The fact is, Now remember this, it's important, "YOU NEVER LOSE, UNTIL YOU SELL". If the stock is tanking, don't sell it, buy more. When it comes back to par, it doesn't have to move as far up as it fell to break even. If your dumb enough to buy extremely "Risky" stocks, such as Dot.Com's, You deserve what you got. Your odds are about like playing a Roulette wheel. The old addage, "Don't bet what your not willing to lose" kinda fits here. And by the way, Who was in power when the Dot.Com's tanked?

The last 2 sentences really gets me, because Bush was in power when the dot.coms belly up reached its climax in March of 2000. And Bush was the one who took us to war and is in jeopardy of being the one repsonsible for us loosing our country.
 
Got this in an e-mail just wanted to share it.

YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN

I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare.
I am an American.


I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!


I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!


I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer; it makes you a smart American.


I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.


I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.


I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.


My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.


I know wrestling is fake and I do watch it.


I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.


I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA.


If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.


I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one?


I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry rear if you're running from them..


I also think they have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.


And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my driver’s license. I think it's good..... And I'm proud that "God" is written on my money.


I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.


I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making "donations" to their cause.


I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.


I believe "illegal" is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.


I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA!


If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.


If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.


We want our country back!
 
Since your posts are hard to quote, I will list your "quotes" in seperate text.

"Why is it the US responsibility to feed ALL the hungry nations in the world? I'll answer. Because we are the only country that will do either. None of the other countries in this world (wether they could afford it or not) choose to spend their resources on anything but themselves."

NOT TRUE>>>>>IT IS NOT SOLEY THE US RESPONSIBILITY...The bill that Obama introduced is a direct result of the "Millenium Project" introduced by the UN. Unless I'm mistaken, it is a requirement that all members of the UN participate. (not sure, could be wrong on that part) But, The US will not be alone in this endeavor. It includes all of the Nations who are part of the UN. Yet you insist that it is our responsibilty to "soley' rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and free its people. More republican double talk here. We should help rid a tyrant, but do nothing to help those who are helpless. Yet we would not be helping those who cannot help themselves alone...we would have the support of the UN. Unlike the war we engaged ourselves in. OK....I get it now, it makes perfect sense. Lets go against the rest of the superpowers of the world.

It states in the bible that you must live according to the laws of the land while here. He was not and the US held him accountable.

It also states in our constitution that there is to be a seperation of church and state. But that is beside the point....Our laws are not applicable in Iraq. Let them live by the laws of Iraq... Iraq was a sovereign nations with its own laws....US law was not the "laws of the land" you are preaching about. We had absolutely no justification in going to Iraq if it was to force democracy or our laws on those people. Just the same as you ask why it is our job to feed starving nations, I will ask this. Why is it our job to liberate nations? Especially without the support of the UN? "Feel Good" stories about how happy the Iraqi people are about our being there are as cheap as smart republicans. If those people are so happy about democracy, then why aren't they lining up and enlisting in the Iraqi Army to police themselves and fight the insurgents. Why is it our reposnsibility 4 years later to keep fighting their fight if they want it so badly?????


Where are these kids parents that need all this help? Why aren't they providing for them, or at least being held accountable for them

What difference does it make why they aren't provided for. The bottom line is, they are our own people. They should come first. In order for our country to be the best it can be, shouldn't we make sure that we have the proper upbringing for our children? Or is that only for the rich upper class kids??? You want to liberate Iraq, but you don't care about our own? Maybe we should have spent some of the 1.2 Trillion on ourselves rather than Iraq. Or maybe you should do some sole searching.



I'm all about giving a hand UP, not a Hand OUT
I'll remember your sentiments when I see your starving butt in a soup line when I'm serving the truely deserving and needy after 4 more years if a republican is elected. You can go lick the cheese from uder GWB's testicles when you need nourishment as far as I am concerned.


Come on man, if you want to find someone who is not thinking for themselves, you only need look in the mirror.
I'm perfectly happy with who I see in the mirror and know that I am more than intelligent enought to know the difference betweeen right and wrong. Most of what I hear you preaching about is flat out wrong. If beleiving in the status quo and with the path Republicans have taken us down means that I am smart, I will glady admit that I am a moron. Placing yourself first and others second is a double standard that most of you Rep. live by. I would gladly give the shirt off my back to anyone who needs it. It does not mean that I feel it is proper for those in need to abuse the privelege. My freinds on this website can testify to that.

Fact, schools are being built and manned in Iraq
You better check the phone book for how many Iraq doctors are already in this country practicing medicine. Iraq is better educated in the last 20 years than the US could even think of. My doctor is Iraqi for christ sake. And who is manning the schools. Here we go again, taking care of others who are capable of taking care of themselves.


This is a misguided statement. A republican would say this is nothing more than trying to cure symptoms of a disease and not paying attention to what the disease actually is or offering a cure. The cure is find out why the parents of the children don't have healthcare (this is republican's way of charity). As far as using the word elderly; again this is a word designed to gain empathy. Most of the elderly have plenty of money, as they have come from the greatest time of wealthbuilding in history, and if the elderly are poor, why not just say "Poor". Regarding the poor; Why are they poor? Is is by choice?, or was there some catastrophe that we as a country need to address. To make a blanket statement with these feel good words, is waaaay too general to rebut, it would take volumes to adequately

The only one misguided is you, and that is a sickening statment to make. Not every elderly American was able to invest or make a ton of money and retire in Flordia as most Republicans do. God rest my grandmothers sole, who died in a nursing home, with little more than the clothes on her back. Unfortunately she wouldn't allow my parents to intervene and make a better life for her..she didn't want to be a burden to them. Nor do some children have parents capable of giving them the things that they need. How can you live with yourself...you want to help others who have everything, but don't want to help your own. I pity your sole.

Ecclesiastes 5:17
You must be familiar with Ecc. Chapter 5 to understand this. Republicans are supposed to be christians and know this. But based on your previous comments It doesn't surprise me that you do not understand. May GOD have mercy on your sole for not understanding his words. Heres a copy and past of a rough interpretation (since you probably do not read Gods word on a regular basis) so you and other republicans can understand
The goodness of Providence is more equally distributed than appears to a careless observer. The king needs the common things of life, and the poor share them; they relish their morsel better than he does his luxuries. There are bodily desires which silver itself will not satisfy, much less will worldly abundance satisfy spiritual desires. The more men have, the better house they must keep, the more servants they must employ, the more guests they must entertain, and the more they will have hanging on them. The sleep of the labourer is sweet, not only because he is tired, but because he has little care to break his sleep. The sleep of the diligent Christian, and his long sleep, are sweet; having spent himself and his time in the service of God, he can cheerfully repose in God as his Rest. But those who have every thing else, often fail to secure a good night's sleep; their abundance breaks their rest. Riches do hurt, and draw away the heart from God and duty. Men do hurt with their riches, not only gratifying their own lusts, but oppressing others, and dealing hardly with them. They will see that they have laboured for the wind, when, at death, they find the profit of their labour is all gone like the wind, they know not whither. How ill the covetous worldling bears the calamities of human life! He does not sorrow to repentance, but is angry at the providence of God, angry at all about him; which doubles his affliction
So, do you get it now? How about you give me a synopsis of your interpretation and editorialize how you and your republican chums implement this passage into your lives, or how a republican leader (who is supposed to be a christian and follow the word of God) might use this when leading a country.

produced the longest economic expansion in American historyThanks to the greatest president this nation has ever seen, Reagan
You really believe that????!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!???????? I have just lost any respect I might have had for you...Reagan was not in any way shape or form responsible for the economic boon we saw during the 90's. Back it up factually and I will consider responding to your future comments, until then I will put you on my ignore list.


At least Nixon resigned saving some of his dignity.
How about GWB stating 'were not in a recession", "Iraq has WMD's", "We won't rest unitl we catch Osama"..... Need I continue? There are probably 100 more famous quotes. Dignity..something a republican knows, or cares nothing about.


Hot air with no substance
How about full of bs with no heart, that should be the official definition of republican.


king
 
mike44 said:
King?
Did you play basketball? I only ask because you're sure slam dunking it tonight!
Click to expand...

I appreaciate the words of encouragement.

I just can't understand how Republicans can think or feel that their form of government is right for this country. Its kind of like this. You buy an Edsel keep it for four years. During those 4 years it breaks down numerous times, leaves you stranded on the side of the road, you walk miles to a phone. Then you trade it in for a Ramber. The Rambler runs great for 8 years. Never lets you down. Never leaves you stranded. It's reliable and dependable and gets you to the places you need to go. Then for no apparent reason other than peer pressure, social status, and the guilt you feel for betraying your family traditions, you trade it in and buy another Edsel. During the first four years you have the same results...breakdowns, letdowns, disappointments. So you think, well, I got a lemon, I'll trade it in and get another. Guess what...same old Edsel song and dance. So now its time to trade it in again. Guess what....they want to buy another Edsel even though they had a proven successful track record with a Rambler. The Edsel buyers just don't want to admit the Rambler was great, cause there are Edsel people. Doesn't matter what the good points were, they only want to focus on the miniscule bad things...like the ashtray was full, or there is a rock chip in the windshield.

I just don't get it. I don't know what they expect will change with another Edsel. Change, that is their biggest fear. Change is different therefor its wrong.


king
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Back
Top