Re: The Debate McCain "veto any bill with earmarks"

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:41:54 -0700, "Just plain \"Dusty\""
<RV-dragger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Mike Hendrix" <mikehendrix@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dk1ud4tv9e2l2grao8ddgnj4mvml57cqv8@xxxxxxxxxx
...
In the "agreement in principle," sent up by the US Senate Banking
Committee,
yesterday, there is a major "earmark" which commits money from future
"profits" (if this thing can be turned around and lead to any positive
monies) to be given to (so called) nonprofit organizations like ACORN, La
Raza, and the National Urban League.

Here we are, in the middle of an unprecedented government spending spree,
and the leader of the dark-side of the Senate has to stick in a spending
bill rider benefitting nearly all of his Marxist goons!

On top of which, Sen. Christopher Dodd, his fellow democrats and the
democrat membership of the Senate Banking Committee are stipulating that
in
the event there is a profit (down the road from this action) they want to
pre-direct that any future funds (profits) not be returned to the
taxpayers
via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite the groups already
mentioned above. The very groups which had their hands, up to the ankles,
in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities,
illegal voter registrations and other such lobbying activities.

Talk about a brass pair of balls. Am I the only one reading here that's
outraged by that?
Anyone??

...
Dusty, thanks for the reply. It is amazing to me how much alike we
view things --- while at the same time we seem disagree on things. Is
it semantics?
No, probably only the normal give-and-take between two adults who have
differing world-views brought about by differing life experiences.

I kinda like that analogy --- two adults with differing world-views
brought about by differing life experiences.


--
clipped
---

Have any of you reading here ever wondered just why the press and the libs
hammer so much, so hard, and so often on the prez? They use all manner of
unflattering names like "Shrub", and worse to denigrate him. If, like me,
you're baffled as to why an otherwise unassuming and well-intentioned man
would be treated thus,

Dusty, I guess I see this "Shrub" issue differently. Bush and his
entire organization have been far better at the "name-game" than the
Dems ever dreamed of being. Just think of what Clinton is called to
this day. I am not baffled as to why Bush is treated that way at all.
When someone throws bricks from inside a glass house they should
expect glass to be broken. He is only receiving what he and his cadre
of insiders have dished out.



off also. But the Dems are pretty much unabashed with their spending
thoughts & actions. The Republicans have as a whole have been
preaching one thing and doing another. That pisses me off so bad. It


True enough. But I think I've at least provided a framework for some of
that, above. That's not an excuse. If it were up to me our government
would be a 1/3 the size it is today and our military would be doubled.

I would agree with a much smaller government but I would cut the DOD
budget by at least 50% from where it is. Remember, when I worked, I
was handling DOD money and the waste there is phenomenal. I know what
the military can operate on. I also know how much is noting but PORK.

But that is something we will have to disagree on since we come from
different life-experiences.


I'll
bet that without even raising a sweat, I could cut spending 50% in an hour.
Of course there would be a few less cabinet positions to fill, but what the
hey!

If the rest of the government is anything like DOD cutting 50% would
be relatively easy.


...
I was loathe to put another "C" student in office especially one that
seems to mimic Bush. BUT if McCain is serious about VETOing bills
with earmarks then I can overlook all his other baggage.
I really don't care what his level of competence in school was. Mine was
never all that great, yet I seem to have made my way sufficiently well and
better than most others.

Like you I wasn't at the top of my class either. However, I do not
consider myself "presidential material". VBG

I want someone that PUTS AMERICA FIRST! That's
all I'm looking for.

Hopefully, all Americans want that.

When some terrorist living in a third-world shithole
puts a hole in my America, I want the prez to have the balls to leave
nothing but a smoking hole in the ground of the country that either spawned
them or harbored them...or better yet, both!

I thought that was what was going to happen to Afghanistan and was
surprised when it did not happen. Then I thought cooler heads may
have prevailed. It is beginning to look like the place should have
been turned to glass. I am not sure we can change that culture.

The only words I want to hear after that would be: "Next?!?"

I would much rather hear the word "Next" than some BS about we are
going to rebuild them.


Holding my nose but leaning in that direction.
Sadly, I don't even have the choice to "lean". Like general Pacepa, I
managed to escape from a communist country too. I fully understand the
freedoms that Americans are losing, and the cost of preventing that (or
not). I simply can not vote for an avowed, race-baiting/hustling,
anti-American Marxist running for the party of defeat
(http://tinyurl.com/6km5m9). So for me the choice is easier.

I can see where your life experiences would lead you to such as
conclusion.


If the dems were ever to field someone of the caliber of Joe Liebermann or
Zell Miller, then I'd have to reconsider my selection. But, since they
bring character, humility and a love for America to the table, that's about
as likely as me being on their ticket...

Okay, I've blathered on long enough.

Thanks for the insight. I enjoyed the read.

mike
--




L8r all,
Dusty



Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
.

Loading