- This topic has 290 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 10, 2008 at 4:40 PM #151378February 10, 2008 at 4:42 PM #151025
Anonymous
GuestI don’t believe in a lot of “handouts” in terms of welfare, and unemployment. We shouldn’t make it easy for people to take advantage of the system to the point they are not bettering themselves and are permanently living off taxpayers. OTOH, I cannot stomach the thought of mentally ill bagladies wasting away on the streets. There has to be funding to get these people off the street and healthy enough to become productive members of society. If they can’t, we need to bear the burden.
But I am for handouts to welfare mothers a helluva lot more than I am for handouts (bailouts) to financially secure assholes who felt they deserved a hummer and a million dollar house. No way. They need to hit the wall doing 90.
February 10, 2008 at 4:42 PM #151286GuestI don’t believe in a lot of “handouts” in terms of welfare, and unemployment. We shouldn’t make it easy for people to take advantage of the system to the point they are not bettering themselves and are permanently living off taxpayers. OTOH, I cannot stomach the thought of mentally ill bagladies wasting away on the streets. There has to be funding to get these people off the street and healthy enough to become productive members of society. If they can’t, we need to bear the burden.
But I am for handouts to welfare mothers a helluva lot more than I am for handouts (bailouts) to financially secure assholes who felt they deserved a hummer and a million dollar house. No way. They need to hit the wall doing 90.
February 10, 2008 at 4:42 PM #151294GuestI don’t believe in a lot of “handouts” in terms of welfare, and unemployment. We shouldn’t make it easy for people to take advantage of the system to the point they are not bettering themselves and are permanently living off taxpayers. OTOH, I cannot stomach the thought of mentally ill bagladies wasting away on the streets. There has to be funding to get these people off the street and healthy enough to become productive members of society. If they can’t, we need to bear the burden.
But I am for handouts to welfare mothers a helluva lot more than I am for handouts (bailouts) to financially secure assholes who felt they deserved a hummer and a million dollar house. No way. They need to hit the wall doing 90.
February 10, 2008 at 4:42 PM #151312GuestI don’t believe in a lot of “handouts” in terms of welfare, and unemployment. We shouldn’t make it easy for people to take advantage of the system to the point they are not bettering themselves and are permanently living off taxpayers. OTOH, I cannot stomach the thought of mentally ill bagladies wasting away on the streets. There has to be funding to get these people off the street and healthy enough to become productive members of society. If they can’t, we need to bear the burden.
But I am for handouts to welfare mothers a helluva lot more than I am for handouts (bailouts) to financially secure assholes who felt they deserved a hummer and a million dollar house. No way. They need to hit the wall doing 90.
February 10, 2008 at 4:42 PM #151383GuestI don’t believe in a lot of “handouts” in terms of welfare, and unemployment. We shouldn’t make it easy for people to take advantage of the system to the point they are not bettering themselves and are permanently living off taxpayers. OTOH, I cannot stomach the thought of mentally ill bagladies wasting away on the streets. There has to be funding to get these people off the street and healthy enough to become productive members of society. If they can’t, we need to bear the burden.
But I am for handouts to welfare mothers a helluva lot more than I am for handouts (bailouts) to financially secure assholes who felt they deserved a hummer and a million dollar house. No way. They need to hit the wall doing 90.
February 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM #151030Allan from Fallbrook
Participantgandalf: I would agree that our post-9/11 strategy leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, though, our “pre” 9/11 strategy (the 50 years prior) weren’t so hot, either.
I would ascribe our foreign policy failures to two things: The “balance of power”/USSR containment strategy, and our support of colonial powers like France and Great Britain, and the post-colonial nightmares they spawned. All of the seeds of our present distress were sown in those times, and as a result of those strategies and policies.
You need look no further than a picture of FDR with ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia near the close of WWII to see what direction things were heading in. Or our support of de Gaulle (because we wanted France in NATO) and his little Indochinese adventure.
George Washington was right on the money regarding foreign entanglements. Problem is, how do we get the oil, raw and finished goods, etc to our shores without them?
February 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM #151291Participantgandalf: I would agree that our post-9/11 strategy leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, though, our “pre” 9/11 strategy (the 50 years prior) weren’t so hot, either.
I would ascribe our foreign policy failures to two things: The “balance of power”/USSR containment strategy, and our support of colonial powers like France and Great Britain, and the post-colonial nightmares they spawned. All of the seeds of our present distress were sown in those times, and as a result of those strategies and policies.
You need look no further than a picture of FDR with ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia near the close of WWII to see what direction things were heading in. Or our support of de Gaulle (because we wanted France in NATO) and his little Indochinese adventure.
George Washington was right on the money regarding foreign entanglements. Problem is, how do we get the oil, raw and finished goods, etc to our shores without them?
February 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM #151299Participantgandalf: I would agree that our post-9/11 strategy leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, though, our “pre” 9/11 strategy (the 50 years prior) weren’t so hot, either.
I would ascribe our foreign policy failures to two things: The “balance of power”/USSR containment strategy, and our support of colonial powers like France and Great Britain, and the post-colonial nightmares they spawned. All of the seeds of our present distress were sown in those times, and as a result of those strategies and policies.
You need look no further than a picture of FDR with ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia near the close of WWII to see what direction things were heading in. Or our support of de Gaulle (because we wanted France in NATO) and his little Indochinese adventure.
George Washington was right on the money regarding foreign entanglements. Problem is, how do we get the oil, raw and finished goods, etc to our shores without them?
February 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM #151317Participantgandalf: I would agree that our post-9/11 strategy leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, though, our “pre” 9/11 strategy (the 50 years prior) weren’t so hot, either.
I would ascribe our foreign policy failures to two things: The “balance of power”/USSR containment strategy, and our support of colonial powers like France and Great Britain, and the post-colonial nightmares they spawned. All of the seeds of our present distress were sown in those times, and as a result of those strategies and policies.
You need look no further than a picture of FDR with ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia near the close of WWII to see what direction things were heading in. Or our support of de Gaulle (because we wanted France in NATO) and his little Indochinese adventure.
George Washington was right on the money regarding foreign entanglements. Problem is, how do we get the oil, raw and finished goods, etc to our shores without them?
February 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM #151388Participantgandalf: I would agree that our post-9/11 strategy leaves a lot to be desired. In truth, though, our “pre” 9/11 strategy (the 50 years prior) weren’t so hot, either.
I would ascribe our foreign policy failures to two things: The “balance of power”/USSR containment strategy, and our support of colonial powers like France and Great Britain, and the post-colonial nightmares they spawned. All of the seeds of our present distress were sown in those times, and as a result of those strategies and policies.
You need look no further than a picture of FDR with ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia near the close of WWII to see what direction things were heading in. Or our support of de Gaulle (because we wanted France in NATO) and his little Indochinese adventure.
George Washington was right on the money regarding foreign entanglements. Problem is, how do we get the oil, raw and finished goods, etc to our shores without them?
February 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM #151036Guestmarion: I’m slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. I do differ from mainstream Republicans on abortion (pro-choice) and the death penalty (against it).
I’m against the death penalty as well. That’s your Catholism coming out, isn’t it? Pro-choice? I figured you were.
Birth Control?
February 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM #151296Guestmarion: I’m slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. I do differ from mainstream Republicans on abortion (pro-choice) and the death penalty (against it).
I’m against the death penalty as well. That’s your Catholism coming out, isn’t it? Pro-choice? I figured you were.
Birth Control?
February 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM #151304Guestmarion: I’m slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. I do differ from mainstream Republicans on abortion (pro-choice) and the death penalty (against it).
I’m against the death penalty as well. That’s your Catholism coming out, isn’t it? Pro-choice? I figured you were.
Birth Control?
February 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM #151322Guestmarion: I’m slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. I do differ from mainstream Republicans on abortion (pro-choice) and the death penalty (against it).
I’m against the death penalty as well. That’s your Catholism coming out, isn’t it? Pro-choice? I figured you were.
Birth Control?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.