Image of the day

Captured by
edward registrato

Newly Discovred Supernova in M 101

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

Started by AstroMart, 04/07/2018 03:51PM

Poll Results:

0 Total Votes
Posted 08/22/2008 08:45PM #90
There weren't any "surpluses" or "debt payoffs". The 4 sets of books never jived with one another. It was basically a lie to "justify" the Clinton Administration's "covert" spending practices. You can see "reports" that look like there were, but you see other reports that were the opposite. I just don't think the Government in general even know what the actual "budget parameters" are.
And if you think about it, there was a Republican majority in Congress during the Clinton Years. So who actually was responsible for the "budget" then? Well, scratch the word "responsible".. LOL! I don't think either of them are "responsible"..
It's just a game of smoke and mirrors.

Joe Bergeron said:

That's interesting. How does your theory take into account Clinton's years of budget surpluses and debt payoff?
Posted 08/22/2008 08:56PM #91

While I am amazed and pleased that you and I actually agree grin on something, I must add that I do disagree with your premise of your first paragraph (commenting on "the bigger question". How do you know what parameters people are using to answer this question? I just gave examples (albeit biased and partisan in regards to my thoughts on the libs....but, they do hate Bush), as well as an example as to why conservatives in this case(me) might be dissatisfied with the current administration. but, I also articulated at least one point as to why I supported the current admin.

I disagree that Obama is a blank slate. He presents himself as one, so that non discerning or even just plain (ie, well intentioned) citizens can fill in with what they "hope for", after all, who is against "fairness" or "free health care"? But, there is ample information available on the man, and he has said what he wants to do (whether the media covers it is another matter).

just this week, he played the moral equivalence card by comparing the invasion of the Republic of Georgia by Russia with the U.S. overthrow of the brutal Saddam Hussein government in Iraq. Obama has much to answer in regards to his philosophy and his ties to the teachings of Saul Alinsky (Hillary is also a student of Saul), Bill Ayers, who not only is a non repentant terrorist, but also involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (which the records have now become sealed, and yes, they did use public monies). as well as his (Bill Ayers) involvement with revamping education (so that it reflects "social justice") (City Journal had a nice article a year or so ago).

and finally, as I ramble on, I don't know when Obama has been to china, but, I was there in the mid 1990s (yeah, I know that was 10 years ago), but just because they made a bunch of nice "shiny" things for the Olympics doesn't mean their infrastructure or their society is any good. I am not surprised that the mainstream media didn't cover his comments, because if they did, it is possible that organized labor might (the ought to) rethink their allegiance to Obama.

Anyway, too much fun for tonight....