|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Sympathy does not a president make.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
Just out of curiosity, why does everyone dislike Hillary Clinton (seeting aside partisan preferences)?
I dunno...maybe its her long history of out of the mainstream philosophy (until recently).
Maybe its her flip flopping (for lack of better term) on issues since she got elected to the Senate, in an effort to erase her rep as being out of the mainstream.
Maybe its the fact that the one public policy initiative Bill put her in charge of, health care, was a disaster.
Maybe its the fact that she was elected to the Senate in a state she didn't even live, largely-if not solely-on the basis of who she was sleeping with/married to. And the fact that anyone with half a brain can see she stayed married to the guy solely as a campaign strategy.
Maybe its the fact that she's running for President on more or less the same basis.
I live in New York. Both my Senators are Democrats, her and Schumer. Philosophically I don't much like either of them. I will say, however, that Schumer treats constituents with respect. Hillary does not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Here’s two new arguments for the Hillary-watchers: The biggest advantage Hillary, or any Democrat, will have in 2008: Let's look at U.S. presidents since 1952: Eight years of Republican rule (Eisenhower) followed by eight years of Democratic rule (Kennedy, Johnson). Then eight years of Republican rule (Nixon, Ford). Then four years of Democratic rule (Carter). Then twelve years of Republicans (Reagan, Bush) followed by eight years of Democrats (Clinton), followed by eight years of Republicans (Bush).
There seems to be a pendulum effect; it's "normal" for each party to hold the White House for eight years at a time; it’s hard, though not impossible, for one party to keep the White House for more than two consecutive terms.
This historical pendulum effect would appear to benefit the Democrats in 2008; of course, as Michael Dukakis proved, nominate the wrong candidate and the public will keep a party in power for more than eight years.
The biggest disadvantage Hillary will have: In 2000, Bush was a fresh face with a familiar name; he had only been in elected office for six years. In 1992, Clinton was a very fresh face, a near-unknown in 1991. In 1980, Reagan certainly had established a certain national familiarity, from his 1976 run, his governorship, and his movie career, but he had not been a central player in Washington political life.
By 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton will have been front and center in American political life, day in and day out, for sixteen straight years. Has there been a week where she was not in the news? A month? I can’t think of a public figure who has so relentlessly lived in the spotlight of the political world for so long.
She’s already had a dramatic, chock-full-of-ups-and-downs career: the 60 Minutes interview after Gennifer Flowers’s allegations, the Tammy Wynette comment, “two for the price of one,” her health care plan, “It Takes a Village”, “it’s for the children,” the imaginary discussions with Eleanor Roosevelt, the missing and reappearing papers of the Rose Law Firm, “the vast right wing conspiracy,” her claim to Talk magazine that her husband’s infidelity stemmed from childhood trauma over a conflict between his mother and grandmother, the embrace of Suha Arafat, the upstate New York “listening tour,” her claim to be a Yankees fan, the surprisingly easy victory over Rick Lazio, the eight million dollar advance for “Living History,” her post-9/11 work and subsequent embrace by the New York Post, and now the “plantation” remark…
Credit her resilience; also to her credit, a lot of New Yorkers applaud her for being a better (and more hawkish) senator than many expected. But her life – along with her husband’s – has been a relentless cavalcade of controversies, dramas, revelations and surprises, like a soap opera that just doesn’t end. Is there a chance that by 2008, Americans will simply be tired of her? Is there a chance that by 2008, enough Americans are tired of her to vote for either a Democratic rival in the primaries or the GOP nominee?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Hillary Clinton's pro's outweigh her cons. She's smart & well spoken & is moderate. Clinton's already been in the White House & has been a popular senator. My feeling is that the folks that hate her would never ever vote for a Democrat anyway.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Clinton's already been in the White House
Heh. Yeah. I thought it was great how she stole some of the furniture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Hillary Clinton's pro's outweigh her cons. She's smart & well spoken & is moderate. Clinton's already been in the White House & has been a popular senator. My feeling is that the folks that hate her would never ever vote for a Democrat anyway.
I agree, I think she would make a great nominee, so go for it!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Hillary Clinton's ... moderate.
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
She'll be in my building today. I'll tell her you guys said 'hi'.  Matter-eater Man wrote on Wed Jan 25 2006 08:35 PM "My feeling is that the folks that hate her would never ever vote for a Democrat anyway." Not necessarily. In fact, give me someone whose platform comes closer to meeting my thoughts than their respective Republican opponent, and you might be suprised. Actually, I think G-Man's Wed Jan 25 2006 04:11 PM post sums up my feelings for Shillary pretty good, especially for those areas of NY away from NYC.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Hillary Clinton's pro's outweigh her cons. She's smart & well spoken & is moderate. Clinton's already been in the White House & has been a popular senator. My feeling is that the folks that hate her would never ever vote for a Democrat anyway.
I've always dislike Clinton because of her far-left beliefs and the fact that she has always seemed (to me) to be out of touch with regular Americans. Not simply because she is a Democrat. Evan Bayh has been either Indiana's governor or senator for as long as I can remember and I've gladly voted for him several times. If he were to one day run for the presidency, I'd vote for him then.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
I've always dislike Clinton because of her far-left beliefs and the fact that she has always seemed (to me) to be out of touch with regular Americans.
Aren't you reading, she's a moderate.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Interesting responses. I'm not sure what is considered a far left view though as it varies from candidate to canidate. For example Bush fairly recently passed a huge drug benefit that so far seems to be just a huge payoff to insurance companies. The conservative press has been saying for years that she's been "positioning herself as a moderate", while the liberal press complains that she's to conservative. I've known a couple of people that have hated Hillary as First Lady but have liked what she's done in congress. If she decides to run, I'm guessing with the extra exposure she'll be electable.
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2006-01-27 4:54 PM.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,295 Likes: 6
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,295 Likes: 6 |
So, to sum up G-man's position as supplemented by others, she's 1) too far to the left (an extremist) who 2) vacillates on key issues and 3) has a poor track record in her public activities (reforming the health care system).
I have no personal knowledge of 1) and 2), but think I can forgive someone for not solving 3) given its complexity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Robert Goldberg is Director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress. He argues: [When Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, took charge of health care prices] the market value of biotech stocks..went down. So too did the amount of venture capital flowing into startups at the time.
Indeed, the amount of money going into biotech declined more sharply when Hillary was threatening price controls than at any other time since biotech has been around. Seventy-five percent of them had two years of cash or less left in large part because, as the head of the biotech trade group BIO testified at the time, investors were scared by the de facto price controls in the administration's health-care plan.
And the price controls Hillary did get passed in the Vaccines for Children Program were cited by the Institute of Medicine in 2001 as one reason the vaccine industry is stagnant and unprofitable. Who wants to invest in products knowing your prices are going to be frozen for a decade?
Then there is Children's Health Care Insurance Plan Hillary loves to take credit for. This program provides federal money to set up state run low cost insurance programs for working class kids. It was supposed to insure nearly nine million children.
Guess what? Under her stewardship kids were first dumped from Medicaid and then re-enrolled into SCHIP programs. And then it took four years to enroll three million children. And at the same time, private companies dumped coverage for kids and many parents simply stopped insuring their kids at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
I don't understand how any Republican can say much after Bush's recent payout to insurance companies. Do they ever stop to think how many more are not only uninsured but have slipped into poverty during Bush's terms? 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
First off, G-man, you have a duty inform readers that the source of information is the American Expectorator, so we may avoid that fascist rag!
Secondly, I have to give the Bushies credit. Medicare Plan D has been fucking brilliant as far as I'm concerned. The only critisizm I have is that unsophisticated beneficiaries have had a difficult time understanding it. At the sametime, SSA and Medicare have made huge efforts to aid people with enrollment.
BTW, the bio-tech sector seems to be doing just fine. Aging boomers, remember? We take more drugs than we did in our youth!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I don't understand how any Republican can say much after Bush's recent payout to insurance companies. Do they ever stop to think how many more are not only uninsured but have slipped into poverty during Bush's terms?
Perhaps you'd like to provide data to go along with your rhetoric.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I don't understand how any Republican can say much after Bush's recent payout to insurance companies. Do they ever stop to think how many more are not only uninsured but have slipped into poverty during Bush's terms?
Perhaps you'd like to provide data ....
Certainly can do that this evening. I would point out the Spec's "bash Hillary article" contained little documention itself. 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I'm sure the economists at Media Matters will whip some up for him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I don't understand how any Republican can say much after Bush's recent payout to insurance companies. Do they ever stop to think how many more are not only uninsured but have slipped into poverty during Bush's terms?
Perhaps you'd like to provide data ....
Certainly can do that this evening. I would point out the Spec's "bash Hillary article" contained little documention itself.
You'll be happy to know then that I didn't acctually read it.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
As WBAM asked... Quote:
...
The four-year increase in poverty under President Bush is the worst since his father was in office. The poverty rate rose for five years from 1989 to 1993, as it had from 1979 to 1983.
USA Today
Quote:
Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003
NewsMax Wires
Friday, Aug. 27, 2004
WASHINGTON - The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush....
Newsmax
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
OK, but have you heard the statistics of how "poor" the poor really are. I mean the average TVs per household is 5 a majority of the "poor" have extended cable or satalite TV a third of the poor have MORTGAGES and at least 2 cars. Frankly the poor in our country live pretty well.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, but have you heard the statistics of how "poor" the poor really are. I mean the average TVs per household is 5 a majority of the "poor" have extended cable or satalite TV a third of the poor have MORTGAGES and at least 2 cars. Frankly the poor in our country live pretty well.
I have no clue where you got that idea but growing up we were technically lower middle class and we didn't have that and none of our neighbors had all those luxuries.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, but have you heard the statistics of how "poor" the poor really are. I mean the average TVs per household is 5 a majority of the "poor" have extended cable or satalite TV a third of the poor have MORTGAGES and at least 2 cars. Frankly the poor in our country live pretty well.
I see we're going the Barb Bush route, & would likewise request some documentation to support your claims.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 Likes: 1 |
The word poverty means something totally different in the United States than it does in the rest of the world. Our poor often simply fail to match the standard of living. The rest of the world's poor are dying of starvation and disease.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
The majority of our poor would be considered filthy rich in most of the Third World - the poverty income level in the US is at least TEN TIMES the annual per capita income in most of the world's poorest nations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, but have you heard the statistics of how "poor" the poor really are. I mean the average TVs per household is 5 a majority of the "poor" have extended cable or satalite TV a third of the poor have MORTGAGES and at least 2 cars. Frankly the poor in our country live pretty well.
I have no clue where you got that idea but growing up we were technically lower middle class and we didn't have that and none of our neighbors had all those luxuries.
Probobly because the lower-middle class acctually watches less tellevision than the poor. My folks also were lower-middle class. Infact, by the mere fact that they were public school teachers, some would call them poor. We had one TV, basic cable and two old cars. A Chevy Vega and and a 1977 Olds (this was untill the late 90's) Yet we also lived in a 4,000 square foot house with a 180' view of the watter, so it all depends on how you calculate things.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
So the fact that more people have fallen into poverty during Bush's time in office isn't so bad because on average it's not 3rd world poor?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Well the question of whether it's 'bad' or not isn't really up to us, is it? I'm really glad you've nailed down the probable cause, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Well the question of whether it's 'bad' or not isn't really up to us, is it? I'm really glad you've nailed down the probable cause, though.
Not sure I understand your reply Cap. More people moving down the economic ladder into poverty could be good?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I'm not implying that at all. I was merely pointing out a contrast between our definition of poverty and others' definition(s) around the world. Poverty is certainly not something to be taken lightly (would using it as a political football be considered taking it lightly?), and I wasn't implying that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Then how is it "not up to us" as you put it? As for playing political football with poverty, what can I say. If Bush's economic policies worked like Clinton's I would vote Republican more often. That isn't the case.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I'm saying the standard of what's poor is getting looser. If you look at the statistics, more "poor" people own thier own houses than ever before and alot more own stocks and bonds as well. Also, small buisiness owners are considered poor because they only count thier salaries and not the money that goes back into the buisiness.
Not only so our poor live better than people in 3rd world countries, but they live better than people (middle class, even) in Europe as well.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Are the standards getting looser? According to Wikipedia the last major change in how poverty is determined was in 1960's. Previously it was determined by if a person had enough of the basics (food water shelter) to stay healthy & alive. The big change was defining poverty in relative terms. For example... Quote:
Relative measures of poverty
Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. Relative poverty" can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society. In 1999, the income of a family at the poverty line was $17,020. This was 28.49 % of the median income in the U.S. In 1959 a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64 % of the median income. Thus a poor family in 1999 had relatively less income than a poor family in 1959.
As it stands now a person is poor if they dip below $9,570 a year. Does that seem like a comfortable amount to anyone?
Also,
Quote:
Food security
Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 % in 2001 to 11.1 % in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 % to 3.5 %. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs.
I think talking about tv's makes it seem not so bad than it really is.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
It's about priorities. For one, a disperportionate amount of poor people smoke. That eats up alot of money. A while back I used to sell health insurance and you'd be surprised how many people would prioritise cable TV over the necesities. I'm sorry, but noone in America has to be poor. It does in 99.9999% of all cases come down to choices.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
There are different factors that goes with poverty like mental illness. Some are not easily dismissed as choice. Does a 5yr old have much say about their economic situation?
I do agree that nobody in America has to be poor but we as a country have chosen to let that happen.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
What are we as a country supposed to do if someone chooses cable TV and ciggarettes instead of food and healthcare? Poverty is not a curable disese, it's a produt of human nature. Making life easier for teh poor will simply make it so fewer people choose to get themselves out of poverty.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
I mentioned mental illness & children. You choose to concentrate on the cigs & cable TV ignoring those that don't have any choice. With the right economic policies people do climb out of poverty as they did in the 90's. As it is now more people are falling into poverty even though they work.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,877 Likes: 50 |
Getting back to the topic of Hillary Clinton, I can't help but notice a trend of front page stories where some Republican like the RNC chairman declares Hillary as being angry or Laura Bush saying she's out of bounds. Is it really surprising that major GOPers have negative opinions about her that it should be major news? Might I suggest that their novice psychoanalyzing could be a wee bit biased?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
