Subject:
|
Re: WMD, again...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:23:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
368 times
|
| |
|
|
> This was an unnecessary war that we could ill afford -- your grandkids will
> still be paying it down decades from now. Do you "pay" for everything in
> your private life via debt? Not smart.
>
> Shrub is an idiot. He's not qualified to handle matters of foreign policy
> with any greater finesse than that provided by a bludgeon. He has
> essentially ignored domestic policy except to try and pass more legislation
> to help himself and his extravagantly wealthy buddies from having to pay
> taxes on the money they extort from the rest of us through misleading
> corporate financial reports. See: http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
Again here we must agree to disagree, I think Bush has done a great job of
cleaning up the messes the previous administration left. North Korea's
nuclear program, thanks to Bill Clinton’s foreign policy; Bin Laden never
seriously pursued after the first attack on the world trade center, the
attack on the USS Cole, and the attack on our African Embassy; No serious
commitment to stop Husein from developing WMD’s, just a few cruise missiles
launched; not to mention the whole Somalia incident. I am grateful everyday
that AlGore did not win in 2000.
As for the economy and domestic policy, first I have always believed that
the “dot bomb” situation that largely led to the softening of the stock
market was started by Janet Reno’s case against Microsoft. This downward
trend began well before Bush ever took the oath of office. As for debt, I
live in California, where all top state office are held by Democrats, and
this state now has a deficit larger than all other states combined. No I
don’t like debt, and when that debt grows out of proportion with the GDP we
have a problem. However, if you say that my grandkids are going to be paying
for this war, you also must say the same of the prescription drug program,
and the AIDS relief given to Africa. I wish congressmen on both side of the
aisle would begin to show some fiscal restraint, but I haven’t seen much.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) The preamble has no force in law, it is used only as support for interpretting the intent of the legislators. This is similar to how the titles of particular statutes are handled. And if you think the word "defense" means invading a non-nuke (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
