OT: Yes We Can

I'm all for anything that will help defeat Hillary in the primaries.

Just Wondering wrote in news:E9mdnaq1Zts6jjjanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

You're all missing the point. Without a good leadership and a *working* majority in both House and Senate, who are doing the #right thing# and passing /working legislation that benefits the country as a whole/, nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is going to change, except that the rich will get richerer and the poor poorer.

She's dangerous.

I think they are ALL dangerous.

Wayne

None are anywhere close to as dangerous as the incumbent.

And I don't think he's quite done yet either. 3 undersea internet cables cut (actually 4) almost all of Iran is without service. Who knows what that means... but FOUR cables in a very short time? Pardon me, but that's too strange considering that maybe one a year is considered 'often'. Dragging anchors......who does that?

International copper theft???

Super Pure Glass thieves?

Enlighten us. How's she dangerous?

She's insane. Crazed by the prospect of power. Dude.... take a look at her, will you?

She's insane. Crazed by the prospect of power. Dude.... take a look at her, will you?

You can do better than that.

Lew

you?

Can't speak for Robotoy, but some of the things that certainly are frightening from a personal freedom standpoint:

1. She is strongly advocating the US government taking over 1/7 of the US economy with her National Health care plan. Why is this scary you ask, isn't it compassionate and not scary? Look at how well national health care has worked everywhere it has been tried. You like how Britain's National Health care works? Canada is slipping into the same issues. When "nobody" is paying for something, the system gets overloaded, taxes have to be drastically increased, and rationing of the end product gets instituted. But, instead of learning from the problems of others, she persists in the notion that her plan will work.
2. She has made speeches when railing against the large profits of the oil companies how she is going take those profits and invest them in all manner of neo-socialist utopian plans. Think about those words, "I'm going to take those profits and ..." This is a person running for public office essentially saying that her goal is to appropriate the profits of a private enterprise. *That* should scare anybody who works for a living and especially those who have their own business. What this person is effectively saying is that the "greater good" should determine how much of the fruits of your labor you should be allowed to keep.
3. Charlie Tri (sp?), Norman Chieu (sp?), bus boys barely making minimum wage, others in the lower class making the maximum allowed donation to her campaign. Nope, no graft or corruption there.
4. Clinton Inc and the policy of personal destruction. Get in the Clinton's way and they don't go after your viewpoint or ideas, they go after you personally. Ask Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, and others. The same people who are going sub-orbital because of the sitting president wanting to be able to monitor phone calls from the US to terrorist countries apparently don't see a problem with one of the people from the former administration who had cases of FBI files on US citizens that they were not permitted to have in their possession.

There are many other numerous reasons to fear this person. She is manipulative beyond the normal politician, vindictive, and philosophically leans toward strong socialism. That should frighten anybody who believes in financial and personal freedoms.

Yes I do.

Gasp! In crease taxes when system gets overloaded. You mean don't give a "tax cut" ??

Gasp! Fear change. Fear change. Stay the course!!

Want to know what scares me?

a.. The "surge" a.. Alberto Gonzales a.. Talking about gun rights 2 hours after the Virginia Tech massacre a.. Katrina a.. Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank a.. Losing 5 million E-mails a.. Reading my Pet Goat on 9/11 a.. Valerie plame a.. Firing the prosecutors a.. Invasion of the wrong country a.. Denying global warming a.. Dubai ports deal a.. Jeff gannon a.. Denying global warming a.. Jack abramoff a.. Harriet meirs a.. AWOL in the national guard a.. Illegal wiretaps a.. Terri Shiavo a.. Losing $9 billion in Iraq a.. Arsenic in Drinking Water a.. Misuse of the Patriot Act a.. Gitmo a.. Black CIA sites a.. Cheney shooting a guy a.. No bid contracts a.. No body armor a.. Not catching Bin Ladin

Above bullets taken from:

True. On a provincial level, there has been a lot of 'adjustment'. Locally, the CEO has been blown out of his job and ran out of town. Serious cut-backs have increased the workload of many health professionals.

I can't comment on that. But sounds like business as usual in the political game.

I don't think The Clintons have an exclusive on that style. The fact that during an interview Bill Clinton said that he'd love to have Rove on his team, proves that.

All those points and more. Well put.

Yeah, I bet, especially since it seems to be working.

Why? Aside from some issues with incompetence, he certainly didn't seem to be bent on accumulating FBI files for the president or staging a commando raid on an admittedly whacked out cult leader but at the expense of many lives or assaulting a Florida family in order to return a 9 year old boy to the Cuban communist paradise after his mother died getting him to freedom

Oh, maybe because within 30 minutes of the VT massacre, the anti-gun crowd had already started screeching for more gun laws?

Yep, state governors should listen to their advisors. And city mayors who don't evacuate their people with all available assets (such as school buses)

Eh?

Yeah, that's a whole lot worse than holding FBI files of your political opposition.

Oh please.

Yeah, that was a really *big* deal. Leaking no-kidding secrets to the NYT? No problem. Mentioning the name of a CIA employee (not agent, employee) whose husband had already disclosed that information. My Word! We need and Inquisition! Then we find out that the left-leaning Richard Armitage is the guy who "leaked" the name.

Perfectly within the perview of the sitting administration. The prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the administration.

Yeah, attacking Canada was a bad idea. Oh, we didn't attack Canada? Well let's see. Afghanistan? Taking down the Taliban was a very good idea. Iraq? You are aware that we were already flying daily missions over Iraq and dropping ordnance ever since the end of the first Gulf war? It would be so much better if Saddam were still in power with his sons torturing soccer players and shredding dissidents while his own security guard was still busy cutting out peoples' tongues and sawing off arms with sawzalls. yeah, that was the wrong place to go after. I guess it's better when you attack countries like Kosovo and Bosnia where we have absolutely no national interest.

Yep, let's all jump on the bandwagon of bad science because somebody made a movie.

Seems that got defeated.

You find a person who faked journalistic credentials more frightening than political donors whose means are inconsistent with their donations but who have ties to people from foreign countries who just might be trying to influence political candidates?

Really hung up on that bad science, aren't you?

That quieted down pretty quick when it was found that people from both sides of the aisle were beneficiaries

Well, yeah. And that one didn't fly.

So you believe in the throbbing memo? Fake but accurate.

First you're griping because he didn't do enough on 9/11, now you are griping because he's trying to stop the next attack. There is some debate regarding the illegal part vs. the legislative branch overstepping their authority regarding the executive branch

Wow GW is the root of all sorts of evil I guess. It's too bad he took exception to the idea of starving someone to death. Guess if she'd been in Gitmo, things may have been different.

You need to expound upon this

????

How so? Has Bush used it to attack his opposition? What is wrong with attempting to prevent the next terrorist attack?

Why?

Be afraid, be very afraid

You realize that Bill Clinton issued those to Halliburton, right?

Why, is somebody coming after you?

When is the last time someone has seen him alive?

benefit the rich".

Have you looked at the issues with wait times, the people who are dying because they can't get the medical care they need because the system doesn't have the doctors or funds available when they are needed? I guess that's OK since everybody has to play in the same lottery.

You do realize that this has a detrimental effect on the economy, right? Increasing taxes, especially on the most productive citizens tends to make those productive citizens less productive because at some point, the reward of the extra work is not worth the cost in terms of lost family time or time away from doing things they like because taxes are taking too much to make it worthwhile. So, the result is actually less tax revenue rather than more tax revenue and a declining economy as well.

Yes, in this case I fear change in the same way I would fear someone lighting a match in a dark explosives locker. Yes, they are *doing* something, the only problem is that what they are doing is going to lead to disastrous results. Not all change is good change. Other countries have tried it and have a trail of problems in their wake, why would this attempt be any different?

Secondary question, just exactly how big is this problem you are trying to solve relative to the cost you are looking at incurring to solve it? Especially when one examines the demographics of those not covered by insurance, a significant portion are those in the younger age brackets who are generally quite healthy and are taking a risk (yes, there is a gamble) that they will stay that way until they reach an age they think they will need insurance.

Has anyone _testified_ that Wilson revealed that information?

Putting aside for the moment, the legal issues, what do youi think of the patriotism of people who expose three (3) agents for purely political purposes? What do yo think of the morality of attacking a woman for revenge on her hsuband?

I haven't seen any statement of a reason why Richard Armitage needed to know that information, hence the persons who told him mishandled classified information. Further, they passed that information to Armitage and others without mentioning that it was classified. The object of that exercise is clear.