Re: Low Hanging Fruit

[Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>]

Scott, 
    Your stated that you addressed one post because it
was irresistible. In doing so, you provided an even
more irresistible one. 
    You state: "thanking God that
Clinton's administration (in which he presided over
the longest peacetime economic expansion in the
history of America) is in the past, is puzzling.  I
take it that you prefer the present situation of war,
recession, and deficit spending over peace and
prosperity?  Or is it something much simpler such as
you just can't accept having a Democrat in the White
House?"
     Well, first of all, on the war part you're
factually incorrect. The truth is that war had already
been publicly and loudly declared on the US by the Al
Quaeda group and its allies. Bill Clinton and his
underlings simply chose to do little or nothing about
it. True, ole Bill did have some missiles slammed into
an aspirin factory in the Sudan and destroyed a few
tents in Afghanistan after one of the battles in this
war (the attacks on US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
in which several hundred citizens of those countries
were killed.) But Bill did little or nothing to step
up any action to apprehend persons who were known
operatives of the Bin Laden group--many of whom came
in and out of this country with the greatest of ease
while planning the attacks on NYC, DC and other
targets. I'm sure Bill had more umm..."attractive"
pursuits to occupy his time, I don't know.
     Next, as for the "longest peacetime expansion in
history" stuff. Get Real. 
     Clinton presided over the institution of NAFTA,
GATT, WTO expansion etc. etc. The entry of the US into
these bodies have led to the dismantling of the US
industrial base at an alarming rate. Clinton's sales
pitches for these agreements were along the lines that
we could export all the jobs with which blue collar
workers had previously been able to support their
families and become software designers instead. Of
course, that hasn't panned out so well. The dot-bomb
execs decided to get while the getting was good and
exercise all those lucrative stock options. Too bad 
the employees and  other shareholders were out of
luck. But by God, those stock prices looked great for
a while there, huh? 
   In short, while this "economic expansion" led to
the creation of millions of jobs --millions evaporated
at the same time. The difference in the created and
the evaporated was that the ones that left paid a
living wage but you need two or three of the ones that
were created just to pay the bills. 
   As for having a Democrat in the White House--that
wouldn't bother me a bit--as long as it was a Democrat
that cared half as much for the interests of people
that used to qualify for welfare as he does for
Corporate welfare. It would help if the next one would
get his head out of the sand on border security and
immigration as well. 
     TL



Mike,

I wasn't even going to address this post, but it's
just too irresistable to pass up.  Is there a
connection between people who have lost their
jobs, due to layoffs, and welfare?  I'm unaware of
this.  There are unemployment benefits for some who
have lost their jobs and on a completely unrelated
topic there is welfare for such situations like single
parent households where, for instance, a deadbeat dad
has taken off and a single Mom is left with kids to
raise and no wage earner around to pay the bills.
Yep, and I know you're response to this is something
along the lines of "Tough luck kid, it's too bad that
your Mommy made a bad choice in selecting a deadbeat
Daddy as your father, but Joe Taxpayer doesn't want
to foot the bill for your upbringing, so get used
to living on the streets, and in poverty, forever. 
It's your problem, not one that needs to be solved by
a
few pennies off of the hard earned dollars that are
confiscated from me in the form of taxes."

Regarding your Enron/bin Laden rant, who's logic are
you pointing to?  There is no logic path to follow in
this entirely irrational paragraph, so I'm unable to
give any type of response to this.

Regarding Bill Clinton, I'm not sure of who he has
slandered.  Nor I am aware of any slander lawsuits
filed against this, in your words, "slanderizing
schmuck of a president".  Further, thanking God that
Clinton's administration (in which he presided over
the longest peacetime economic expansion in the
history of America) is in the past, is puzzling.  I
take it that you prefer the present situation of war,
recession, and deficit spending over peace and
prosperity?  Or is it something much simpler such as
you just can't accept having a Democrat in the White
House?

And as for faith...well, I think that's a personal
choice and I'm happy to live in America where
everyone is free to practice whatever religion they
want (providing they are not hurting anyone else
while practicing their religion) or they can practice
no religion at all.

Cheers,

-Scott


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com