Text 16307, 127 rader
Skriven 2005-11-24 10:10:56 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
  Kommentar till text 16306 av VERN HUMPHREY (1:123/140)
Ärende: Republican post tunring
===============================
Hello VERN!

23 Nov 05 15:16, you wrote to me:

 VH> Please don't reply to the original post, Ross.  The poster is banned
 VH> in this echo.

I didnt and I didnt know he was banned. :)


 BK>> ...

 BK> RC>> You will find that the rabid lefto's are singlehandedly
 BK> RC>> trying to blame questionable intelligence on GWB, when in
 BK> RC>> fact our counterparts in the UK confirmed it and as far
 BK> RC>> back as 97-98, we had one Presidential Candidate speaking
 BK> RC>> of it as he addressed his colleagues in the US Senate.

 BK>> Going back 5 years before the war is a joke. Our counterparts in
 BK>> the UK claim to have confirmed it, but never revealed any of
 BK>> their supposedly confirming intel.

 BK>> It doesn't matter if every single leader of every single
 BK>> government on Earth agreed. What matters is, the inspections
 BK>> were being done, the facts were being found, and we could have
 BK>> found the truth without an invasion.

 BK>> Bush cut it off. Bush decided, unilaterally and arbitrarily,
 BK>> that we should invade with no legal authority, and, it appears,
 BK>> for the purpose of stopping the inspectors from finding the
 BK>> truth, that the WMDs did not exist.

 BK>> The Bush administration wanted a war. They did not care about
 BK>> WMDs, they did not care about 9-11, they did not care about
 BK>> truth. They wanted a war.

 BK>> And I believe Bush did not know what was going on. I believe
 BK>> Bush was manipulated by Rumsfeld/Cheney/Libby/Wolfowitz and the
 BK>> rest of the Neo-Con cabal.

 BK> J>>> ->  J> And the economy is going into the dumpster...
 BK> J>>> ->  J> ...part of a plan to starve the beast.

 BK> J>>> -> Oh really, prove it?

 BK> J>>> To your satisfaction? :-)

 BK> J>>> There's a mass if evidennce...

 BK> RC>> Consistent job growth the past couple years, only hindered
 BK> RC>> by the 'canes.

 BK>> Not really. The so called job growth is largely low level, part
 BK>> time, and eaten up by illegal immigration.

 BK> RC>> But please do post your evidence.

 BK> J>>> -> Remember we cant have another tech bubble/dot com boom,
 BK> J>>> thats already happened, -> er popped.

 BK> J>>> Say what?

 BK> RC>> I assume you want to reminisce<sp> about the economic boom
 BK> RC>> of the Clinton years and measure all economies to it, I
 BK> RC>> point out that we cant repeat those bubbles that had
 BK> RC>> already burst.

 BK>> Well, yeah, we could. However, the current debt fed growth will
 BK>> pop also.

 BK> J>>> ->  J> Congress is cutting...welfare, school funding, food
 BK> J>>> stanps... ->  J> and giving themselves a nice raise...

 BK> J>>> -> Well I can agree with you on them voting themselves any pay
 BK> J>>> raise, but welfare -> and foodstamps, are supposed to be a
 BK> J>>> safety net, not a hammock. -> True enough...it is
 BK> J>>> line-drawing...at least you do seem to accept the fact that
 BK> J>>> there is a reason for a safty net :-)

 BK> RC>> Unfortunately, even with the reforms passed in the 90's,
 BK> RC>> there is no incentive for those on assistance to want to
 BK> RC>> get off of it.

 BK>> Before the Welfare deform acts 90% of those who went on welfare
 BK>> got off it on their own. It was a temporary support structure.

 BK>> It isn't the desire to get off that is lacking, but the means,
 BK>> for those who don't. The level of welfare support is low enough
 BK>> at it's best that a higher standard of living off welfare is
 BK>> enough motivation. The low level of the minimum wage and near
 BK>> minimum wage jobs makes that an untenable solution for families,
 BK>> esp without child care.

 BK> RC>> Unfortunately the left wing wants these
 BK> RC>> programs around so they can lock in a voter base who is
 BK> RC>> fool enough to believe they are being helped by the left.

 BK>> The democratic social welfare system has long been jobs based.
 BK>> The LBJ great society was a jobs based program. It has been
 BK>> under republicans that we have seen the growth of welfare as a
 BK>> support structure. It has been under republicans we have seen
 BK>> the jump in the rate of unwed motherhood. The republicans are
 BK>> the ones maintaining a poverty based system, which holds down
 BK>> the wages of the working population. They don't worry about a
 BK>> voter base because they know the welfare supported population
 BK>> has a low voting rate. Which makes your theory unsupportable.


 BK>> BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 BK>> ... E-mail: When it absolutely has to get lost at the speed of
 BK>> light. * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 VH> --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 VH>  * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)
 VH> SEEN-BY: 1/3 18/1 106/1 2000 116/627 123/0 140 456 500 627 789
 VH> 229/2000 3000
 VH> SEEN-BY: 250/514 261/38 365/3253 3613/1275 3830/9
 VH> @PATH: 123/140 500

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader! http://www.easternstar.info
Blog: http://www.cassell.us
Email: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com
... Too much of a good thing is WONDERFUL.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-30512
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)