Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, the tax cuts certainly didn't boost employment like Saint Ronnie's vaunted "Trickle Down" theory promised, now did it? But it did explode income inequality in the nation, didn't it?

Not according to this chart it didn't:

Seems to me that it's highest point was during DumBama's first term half of it with a Democrat Congress.

That's besides the fact a President only has so much control over what people earn.

 

[Czernobog]

And let's not even talk about the amnesty he gave to 3 million immigrants.

And why is it you people are so obsessed with granting amnesty? I mean - liberals are the party of unions. Job protection - right? Why would you want 20 million people with the potential to take jobs away from American's at a time when there aren't many jobs thanks to Obama and the Dumbocrats job-killing policies? And why would you liberals want to reward criminals with the highest reward imaginable?

Could it be that libtard realize they can't win clean elections and that they need people from other countries to win?

But...but...Reagan created a Utopia! So, you must be okay with amnesty. After all, the guy who creates Utopia created it with amnesty.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No,moron. Reagan never promised nor claimed to create a Utopia. That unrealistic nonsense comes from you loons on the Left. What Reagan did promote and prove is that in an imperfect world, individual freedom and limited government provide the best environment for people to improve their own lives.

Hey, fucknozzle. I never said that Reagan claimed to have created a Utopia. Go back and read the threads. P@triot said, "It was the closest to utopia the world has ever seen." I was mocking his characterisation of the Reagan years.

You said it in your post, weasel.

Jesus Christ, you fucktard! I quote P@triot's exact phrase! You know what? If you are too retarded to even keep up with the conversation, then just crawl off into a corner, and play with yourself. your comments aren't even worth reading.

Welcome to the Room of the Ignored retard.

 

[paulitician]

Poor silly naive folks. You'll get just enough scraps to barely get by. It's called 'control.' You'll grovel at Big Brother's feet giving thanks for the tiny scraps he allows you. He's not about making Citizens 'happy.' He's about making sure they're well-behaved slaves for him and his Corporate Elite buddies. It'll be just enough scraps to keep you grovelling and begging for more.

Big Brother is not your friend, and he never will be. Americans better start getting that. Him and his Globalist Elite brethren only need you to be obedient slaves, and head off to die in their endless wars. Poor folks are just meat for their Permanent War Meat Grinder. This nation has more than enough wealth to effectively care for its old and poor. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. My advice is, don't depend on Big Brother to save you. He doesn't care about you. Do your best to make it on your own. Depend only on yourself.

 

[boedicca]

And why is it you people are so obsessed with granting amnesty? I mean - liberals are the party of unions. Job protection - right? Why would you want 20 million people with the potential to take jobs away from American's at a time when there aren't many jobs thanks to Obama and the Dumbocrats job-killing policies? And why would you liberals want to reward criminals with the highest reward imaginable?

Could it be that libtard realize they can't win clean elections and that they need people from other countries to win?

But...but...Reagan created a Utopia! So, you must be okay with amnesty. After all, the guy who creates Utopia created it with amnesty.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No,moron. Reagan never promised nor claimed to create a Utopia. That unrealistic nonsense comes from you loons on the Left. What Reagan did promote and prove is that in an imperfect world, individual freedom and limited government provide the best environment for people to improve their own lives.

Hey, fucknozzle. I never said that Reagan claimed to have created a Utopia. Go back and read the threads. P@triot said, "It was the closest to utopia the world has ever seen." I was mocking his characterisation of the Reagan years.

You said it in your post, weasel.

Jesus Christ, you fucktard! I quote P@triot's exact phrase! You know what? If you are too retarded to even keep up with the conversation, then just crawl off into a corner, and play with yourself. your comments aren't even worth reading.

Welcome to the Room of the Ignored retard.

You really are a moron who can't read.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, the tax cuts certainly didn't boost employment like Saint Ronnie's vaunted "Trickle Down" theory promised, now did it? But it did explode income inequality in the nation, didn't it?

Not according to this chart it didn't:

View attachment 80247

Seems to me that it's highest point was during DumBama's first term half of it with a Democrat Congress.

That's besides the fact a President only has so much control over what people earn.

Look at the trend, dumbass. After 1980 - that would have been during Saint Ronnie's Presidency, the top 1% exploded, and has not stop increasing since. The rest of us, on the other hand? Have been plodding along at the same basic level. In other words, rampant income inequality. Jesus! You don't even know how to read a chart?!?!?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Look at the trend, dumbass. After 1980 - that would have been during Saint Ronnie's Presidency, the top 1% exploded, and has not stop increasing since. The rest of us, on the other hand? Have been plodding along at the same basic level. In other words, rampant income inequality. Jesus! You don't even know how to read a chart?!?!?

I would ask you the same.

Income didn't start going up for the wealthy until after the Reagan administration. But that jump was nothing compared to the jump that took place during the Clinton administration. And as I pointed out, it peaked during the beginning of the Obama administration.

With nearly 16 years of Democrat leadership in the White House, that separation between the rich and everybody else kept increasing. So how are you going to blame that on Reagan?

So what would you suggest that any President do to stop the rich from getting richer? More taxation? Isn't that one of the reasons so many companies left the US for better profit grounds? And even if you could somehow stop it, how does that benefit us working stiffs?

 

[paulitician]

George Carlin on the 'American Dream.' Watch it, and learn. He summed it up perfectly...

 

[dblack]

Poor silly naive folks. You'll get just enough scraps to barely get by. It's called 'control.' You'll grovel at Big Brother's feet giving thanks for the tiny scraps he allows you. He's not about making Citizens 'happy.' He's about making sure they're well-behaved slaves for him and his Corporate Elite buddies. It'll be just enough scraps to keep you grovelling and begging for more.

Big Brother is not your friend, and he never will be. Americans better start getting that. Him and his Globalist Elite brethren only need you to be obedient slaves, and head off to die in their endless wars. Poor folks are just meat for their Permanent War Meat Grinder. This nation has more than enough wealth to effectively care for its old and poor. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. My advice is, don't depend on Big Brother to save you. He doesn't care about you. Do your best to make it on your own. Depend only on yourself.

Exactly. This is what government brings to the table. We should rely on government to mitigate violence; to protect us from thugs and resolve disputes. But asking it to do more relinquishes individual freedom and control over our own lives. Sometimes, that's worth it. Most times, it's not.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

 

[Redfish]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

Obama doubled it. 10T when he came in and 20T when he goes out. He will have added more debt than all previous presidents combined------------that is a fact, deal with it and stop lying.

 

[paulitician]

Poor silly naive folks. You'll get just enough scraps to barely get by. It's called 'control.' You'll grovel at Big Brother's feet giving thanks for the tiny scraps he allows you. He's not about making Citizens 'happy.' He's about making sure they're well-behaved slaves for him and his Corporate Elite buddies. It'll be just enough scraps to keep you grovelling and begging for more.

Big Brother is not your friend, and he never will be. Americans better start getting that. Him and his Globalist Elite brethren only need you to be obedient slaves, and head off to die in their endless wars. Poor folks are just meat for their Permanent War Meat Grinder. This nation has more than enough wealth to effectively care for its old and poor. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. My advice is, don't depend on Big Brother to save you. He doesn't care about you. Do your best to make it on your own. Depend only on yourself.

Exactly. This is what government brings to the table. We should rely on government to mitigate violence; to protect us from thugs and resolve disputes. But asking it to do more relinquishes individual freedom and control over our own lives. Sometimes, that's worth it. Most times, it's not.

Big Brother and the Corporate Elites who own this country, only want obedient slaves. You'll get the amount of 'assistance' and 'rights', they allow you to have.

There's no such thing as 'Freedom & Liberty.' That disappeared a long time ago. We are now a nation 'Of the Government/Corporation, for the Government/Corporation, and by the Government/Corporation.' It is what it is.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

Obama doubled it. 10T when he came in and 20T when he goes out. He will have added more debt than all previous presidents combined------------that is a fact, deal with it and stop lying.

No he didn't. Ray just said the President has nothing to do with that. That is Congress. You knows...that Republican congress that we have. So, you, and Ray might wanna get your stories straight. Either it is the President's responsibility, or it isn't. You two seem to disagree on that...

 

[boedicca]

Poor silly naive folks. You'll get just enough scraps to barely get by. It's called 'control.' You'll grovel at Big Brother's feet giving thanks for the tiny scraps he allows you. He's not about making Citizens 'happy.' He's about making sure they're well-behaved slaves for him and his Corporate Elite buddies. It'll be just enough scraps to keep you grovelling and begging for more.

Big Brother is not your friend, and he never will be. Americans better start getting that. Him and his Globalist Elite brethren only need you to be obedient slaves, and head off to die in their endless wars. Poor folks are just meat for their Permanent War Meat Grinder. This nation has more than enough wealth to effectively care for its old and poor. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. My advice is, don't depend on Big Brother to save you. He doesn't care about you. Do your best to make it on your own. Depend only on yourself.

Exactly. This is what government brings to the table. We should rely on government to mitigate violence; to protect us from thugs and resolve disputes. But asking it to do more relinquishes individual freedom and control over our own lives. Sometimes, that's worth it. Most times, it's not.

Big Brother and the Corporate Elites who own this country, only want obedient slaves. You'll get the amount of 'assistance' and 'rights', they allow you to have.

There's no such thing as 'Freedom & Liberty.' That disappeared a long time ago. We are now a nation 'Of the Government/Corporations, for the Government/Corporations, and by the Government/Corporations.' It is what it is.

Correct. This article nails how this ignorance and subordination are intentional.

My students are know-nothings. They are exceedingly nice, pleasant, trustworthy, mostly honest, well-intentioned, and utterly decent. But their brains are largely empty, devoid of any substantial knowledge that might be the fruits of an education in an inheritance and a gift of a previous generation. They are the culmination of western civilization, a civilization that has forgotten nearly everything about itself, and as a result, has achieved near-perfect indifference to its own culture....

How a Generation Lost Its Common Culture | Minding The Campus

 

[JoeNormal]

Statistically speaking, it's a no-brainer to say that there will always be a 1%. It's what that 1% controls in terms of wealth that is the issue.

Apparently, you don't understand what percentages mean. The Top 1% refers to the people who control the top 1% of wealth. The top 1% of wealth is the same regardless of how much wealth there is... it's a percentage of the total.

Here's where there is a difference... In a Communist style system, the Top 1% are the ruling class who also control all political power, all the weapons, all the press, etc. In OUR system, anyone is free to become part of the 1% and anyone can control political power, weapons or access the press.

The "issue" is... you've been brainwashed by socialists trying to promote Marxism. That's the precursor to Communism. The reason is, because they want to be the ruling class or 1%. And they want you to submit your liberty and power to them. You've bought into their rhetoric because you're selfish and think that people who have more than you don't deserve it. You think that somehow, if you support this War on the 1%, you will eventually see some kind of windfall of all that wealth.... the socialists who are feeding you this crap have a name for you.... Useful Idiots.

No, I promote a mix of capitalism and socialism that you find in other first-world countries whose populations haven't been stupefied by the constant barrage of bullshit like you espouse.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Not really because much of the spending took place under a Democrat Congress. Furthermore is that the biggest fights between DumBama and the Republican Congress has been about spending. Congress kept wanting to spend less while DumBama kept wanting to spend more. The sequester, the government shutdown, losing our three star credit rating for the first time in our history all had to do with the spending discrepancies between the White House and Congress. And if we had a Republican President these last four years, not only would spending be way down, but we would probably have a balanced budget by now.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

I don't know if it was okay or not because it didn't effect anybody in our country. Arming our border enemies is a little different--especially when one of our agents was shot and killed with a weapon that was purchased through that program.

And these e-mails should be a concern. Now if Hillary was honest and just allowed our agencies to look through them, fine. But when you start erasing evidence, of course that's a problem for somebody running for the highest office in the land. If you are going to erase emails, apparently there are things in there she didn't want anybody to see, and no, not anything about yoga classes or her daughter's wedding.

With her crackerjack server that just about anybody could have gotten into, our enemies may very well have sensitive or classified information about our country that they can use to blackmail Hillary if she's elected President. Yes, that is a concern of ours and should be of yours as well.

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

I've never seen that and I've been doing blogs for years now. I have read blame share instead of blame switching though. And yes, that's usually in the context that 911 was entirely Bush's fault since he was President at the time; he was only in office 8 months when it happened.

 

[dblack]

There's no such thing as 'Freedom & Liberty.' That disappeared a long time ago.

There's freedom and liberty wherever and whenever we act outside the control of the state. But corporatist government becomes more and more pervasive every day.

We are now a nation 'Of the Government/Corporations, for the Government/Corporations, and by the Government/Corporations.' It is what it is.

We can take it back, but not by playing their game.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, of course he did. His own party figuratively tarred, and feathered him over it. Then there was his unemployment that you guys want to ignore. His massive increases in government spending. His tripling of the budget deficit. Then, of course, there's the Iran/Contra deal you guys want everyone to forget about. Oh, and shall we discuss the economic sanctions against South African Apartheid that only happened in spite of a Reagan veto? And, finally, let's not forget about Reagan's arming, funding, and training a Mahujaden warrior name osama bin Laden, because he was a convenient tool to use against Russia. You guys want to insist that 9/11 only happened because Clinton didn't take out bin Laden during his administration, but the reality is bin Laden would never have had the training, or the equipment to even be a threat, had it not been for Saint Ronnie.

First off, Presidents don't triple of double budgets or debt, that's what the Congress does which was Democrat during the Reagan administration.

So, the last eight years of Republicans talking about how Obama tripled the debt was all a lie? Well, thanks for that.

Not really because much of the spending took place under a Democrat Congress. Furthermore is that the biggest fights between DumBama and the Republican Congress has been about spending. Congress kept wanting to spend less while DumBama kept wanting to spend more. The sequester, the government shutdown, losing our three star credit rating for the first time in our history all had to do with the spending discrepancies between the White House and Congress. And if we had a Republican President these last four years, not only would spending be way down, but we would probably have a balanced budget by now.

Secondly, I don't know how old you are, but if you are older, then you remember how worn out the US was with war. It was not all that long after the end of Vietnam, so why not let others fight our battles for us?

I don't have a problem with others fighting our battle for us. I have a problem with stupidly choosing our "allies of the day". We put the Ayatollah in place. We put Hussein in power. We trained the mujahideen, who would become Al Qaida. We supported the new regime in Iraq that ousted all of the Bathist leaders who would go on to form the core of the ISIS leadership. Do you see a pattern developing here. As far as the Iran/Contra thing, I have no problem with it, except...welll...brokering the deals the way we did? It broke the law. You guys are shitting yourselves over some e-mails, and this fuckwit of a president armed the Columbian Drug Cartels, and the very terrorists who are killing everyone now! But...since it was Saint Ronnie, that's okay, right?

I don't know if it was okay or not because it didn't effect anybody in our country. Arming our border enemies is a little different--especially when one of our agents was shot and killed with a weapon that was purchased through that program.

And these e-mails should be a concern. Now if Hillary was honest and just allowed our agencies to look through them, fine. But when you start erasing evidence, of course that's a problem for somebody running for the highest office in the land. If you are going to erase emails, apparently there are things in there she didn't want anybody to see, and no, not anything about yoga classes or her daughter's wedding.

With her crackerjack server that just about anybody could have gotten into, our enemies may very well have sensitive or classified information about our country that they can use to blackmail Hillary if she's elected President. Yes, that is a concern of ours and should be of yours as well.

Bin Laden? I don't know anybody that blamed 911 on Clinton not getting Bin Laden. Although I have heard some make reference to it when the left places the blame of 911 entirely on Bush. After all, there were two attacks on the WTC: the first one did happen under Clinton, and the second under Bush. The one under Bush was just more devastating.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the right wing rants about 9/11. Every time someone mentions that that happened under Bush's watch, the go to response is to scream, "But Clinton knew about him, and didn't get him! It's all his fault!!!!"

I've never seen that and I've been doing blogs for years now. I have read blame share instead of blame switching though. And yes, that's usually in the context that 911 was entirely Bush's fault since he was President at the time; he was only in office 8 months when it happened.

...and the rest of my response?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...and the rest of my response?

You;ll have to expand it. For some reason, the quote function doesn't work properly for me. It used to, but I've been having trouble getting it to work the last couple of weeks. Sometimes it works, most times it doesn't.

 

[paulitician]

There's no such thing as 'Freedom & Liberty.' That disappeared a long time ago.

There's freedom and liberty wherever and whenever we act outside the control of the state. But corporatist government becomes more and more pervasive every day.

We are now a nation 'Of the Government/Corporations, for the Government/Corporations, and by the Government/Corporations.' It is what it is.

We can take it back, but not by playing their game.

You'll get as much 'freedom' as the Government/Corporate Elites allow you to have. No more, no less.