You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Abortion and the Democrats debate
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Quote from Doubter:
1. How is giving everyone who paid in some of their money back equivalent to taking away more money from a few people to give extra benefits to some targeted others on hopes of gathering their votes?
2. We can pay to have the war there or pay to have the war here. I vote for the latter.
3. Warm.
4. Which industries?
5. Are you from Midland? If so what is business as usual? If not you really don't know anythingabout that.
1)tax cuts financed by deficits are the ultimate form of political bribery...did you think GWB was going to say "elect me and you'll pay for it later!"??
2)i agree, but lets wage war on those who are actually bent on attacking us. afghanistan and libya come to mind, not iraq. and i think i state the obvious when i say that rumsfeld is a moron who really fucked up badly. not only was the war illegal, but mismanaged. it seems that GWB is going to live up to his reputation and scapegoat good 'ol 'rummy' in the upcoming election for this. i'll be interested to see if GWB can manage to become the 1st republican in ~30 years (maybe since nixon) NOT to carry the military vote.
3)OK.
4)oil services.
5)i'm going to let you google midland corruption and see what comes up...
Now it's your turn to provide specific examples of what you mentioned earlier--
Quote from Doubter:
___________________________________________
You seem to believe it is better to post from a lack of knowledge and experience than from a position of having either or both.
I don't consider it compassionate for the liberals to:
1. Promise things for the purpose of buying votes.
2. Provide compassion by forcing someone else to pay for their "compassion".
3. Making the unilateral decision of who receives compassion and who doesn't.
4. Try to take control of industries where they have no business.
5. Totally support the trial lawyers exorbitant fees to harrass
industries and in the end effect health care costs more than any other one factor.
If the liberals truly wanted to help healthcare they would stop protecting the trial lawyers and get some reasonableness in the system where everyone's healthcare costs could be helped.
1. Promise things for the purpose of buying votes.
2. Provide compassion by forcing someone else to pay for their "compassion".
_____________________________________
On another thread AAA has a great post on these two and their effects. Actually the whole welfare state is a shining example for these two.
______________________________________
4. Try to take control of industries where they have no business.
____________________________
Hillarys' healthcare fiasco.
_______________________________________
5. Totally support the trial lawyers exorbitant fees to harrass
industries and in the end effect health care costs more than any other one factor.
_________________________________________
This is an area that is totally out of control. My emphasis is on the monetary incentives for trial lawyers to destroy industries for their own profit. Sueing must be allowed but the benefits to lawyers should be limited and both liberals and conservatives should be on board for this except for the liberal trial lawyers lobby and contributions. Also check the small private airplane manufacturing industry of several years ago and see what they did there.
2. Provide compassion by forcing someone else to pay for their "compassion".
_____________________________________
On another thread AAA has a great post on these two and their effects. Actually the whole welfare state is a shining example for these two.
______________________________________
4. Try to take control of industries where they have no business.
____________________________
Hillarys' healthcare fiasco.
_______________________________________
5. Totally support the trial lawyers exorbitant fees to harrass
industries and in the end effect health care costs more than any other one factor.
_________________________________________
This is an area that is totally out of control. My emphasis is on the monetary incentives for trial lawyers to destroy industries for their own profit. Sueing must be allowed but the benefits to lawyers should be limited and both liberals and conservatives should be on board for this except for the liberal trial lawyers lobby and contributions. Also check the small private airplane manufacturing industry of several years ago and see what they did there.
2)i agree, but lets wage war on those who are actually bent on attacking us. afghanistan and libya come to mind, not iraq. and i think i state the obvious when i say that rumsfeld is a moron who really fucked up badly. not only was the war illegal, but mismanaged.
bungrider
__________________________________________
We agree on Afghanistan and probably also on Libya. The way I view Iraq is simply looking at a strategic map of the middle east. Prior to 9/11 there was a large block of countries where terrorists could operate and were supported from. This was from eastern Pakistan west to Syria and then south to Saudi Arabia. The action in Afghanistan took one out and split Iran and Pakistan, geographically. That still left the western block where we only had a small toe hold in Kuwait. Looking at a map the most strategic country left was Iraq. It was a conduit between Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. By taking Saddaam out it leaves a checkerboard effect and puts pressure on the remaining regimes. Iraq had several strategic pluses its' history, the potential for WMD, Saddaams' atrocities, a country we had no influence over, its resources(to help pay for reconstruction) but mainly where it is located. Libya is a good candidate but it isn't really central to anything mapwise. Also check the stories of CIA operations in other countries of the northern Sahara and elsewhere in Africa. Even Libya is starting to make sounds of cooperation such as the payments of past atrocities. To me it is divide and conquer in regard to terrorism.
bungrider
__________________________________________
We agree on Afghanistan and probably also on Libya. The way I view Iraq is simply looking at a strategic map of the middle east. Prior to 9/11 there was a large block of countries where terrorists could operate and were supported from. This was from eastern Pakistan west to Syria and then south to Saudi Arabia. The action in Afghanistan took one out and split Iran and Pakistan, geographically. That still left the western block where we only had a small toe hold in Kuwait. Looking at a map the most strategic country left was Iraq. It was a conduit between Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. By taking Saddaam out it leaves a checkerboard effect and puts pressure on the remaining regimes. Iraq had several strategic pluses its' history, the potential for WMD, Saddaams' atrocities, a country we had no influence over, its resources(to help pay for reconstruction) but mainly where it is located. Libya is a good candidate but it isn't really central to anything mapwise. Also check the stories of CIA operations in other countries of the northern Sahara and elsewhere in Africa. Even Libya is starting to make sounds of cooperation such as the payments of past atrocities. To me it is divide and conquer in regard to terrorism.
This is an unfortunate story but kind of Ironic that an 18 year old dies from trying to kill the unborn child inside of her.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/19/BA258408.DTL&type=printable
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/19/BA258408.DTL&type=printable