State of the Union "act"
Walt Horning
"business report". The masses are asses because they do not realize
that speech writers write these speeches and that Clinton, as most
politicians, are lawyers with "court room flare" and put on an act!
The substance of Clinton address amounts to crap.
Social Security stock market investments is just another commie plot
by the commies behind Clinton gain even more government control. (The
best way to control people is to control their money.) While it looks
good to possibly increase SS earnings, its really just a way for the
government to control the stock market, by controling government
investiments.
The risks are too high. Social Security was created in response in
part to the great stock market crash of the 1930's. Now Clinton wants
to make Social Security vulnerable to stock market crashes, the very
thing it was to attempt to overcome.
Its best to have a "mixed" portfolio, that is, our SS should be in
stable, albeit moderate growth funds, while our extra earnings should
be in the stock market. That's a mixed portofolio. If the feds put SS
in the stock market, that's "all our eggs in one basket" and that's a
formula for disaster.
As for saving SS, sure, do it, but a compromise between doing that and
enabling more families to afford a decent vacation with a tax refund
would be nice, or for some, just to buy a pair of shoes they badly
need.
proclinton
Walt Horning wrote in message <36a8d50a...@news.pipeline.com>...
.
>
>Its best to have a "mixed" portfolio, that is, our SS should be in
>stable, albeit moderate growth funds, while our extra earnings should
>be in the stock market. That's a mixed portofolio. If the feds put SS
>in the stock market, that's "all our eggs in one basket" and that's a
>formula for disaster.
If you had bothered to listen objectively..........
Clinton proposed a mixed portfolio. He NEVER mentioned putting all SS into
the market.
>
F. Prefect
wrote:
>The substance of Clinton address amounts to crap.
Or could it be your interpretation is full of shit.
Clinton's State of the Union Address was basically centrist in nature
leaving room for bi-partisan compromise with the promise of actually
accomplishing something constructive for the American people during
the 106th Congress.
However, the longer the republicans choose to drag out the impeachment
issue, the less likely the bi-partisanship necessary to reach any
important goals will decrease as the trial becomes a strictly partisan
squabble.
Who stands to damaged in this scenario? Quite clearly the
republicans. The ball is in their court, what they choose to do with
it is their choice.
Ford
"If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want
it caught and shot, now." Z. Beeblebrox
Bob
>
> Clinton's State of the Union Address was basically centrist in nature
> leaving room for bi-partisan compromise with the promise of actually
> accomplishing something constructive for the American people during
> the 106th Congress.
>
> However, the longer the republicans choose to drag out the impeachment
> issue, the less likely the bi-partisanship necessary to reach any
> important goals will decrease as the trial becomes a strictly partisan
> squabble.
So basically you are saying we should drop the charges because you
really like the bribe he has offered?
Bob
Wayne Howell
F. Prefect wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:17:12 GMT, whor...@pipeline.com (Walt Horning)
> wrote:
>
> >The substance of Clinton address amounts to crap.
>
> Or could it be your interpretation is full of shit.
>
> Clinton's State of the Union Address was basically centrist in nature
> leaving room for bi-partisan compromise with the promise of actually
> accomplishing something constructive for the American people during
> the 106th Congress.
I wouldn't count on it.....it was reported on the news this morning that
in Clinton's '96 SOTU address he made 23 proposals and ended up sending 3
of them to the Congress; in his '97 SOTU address he made 27 proposals and
sent 2 of them to Congress.......I didn't count how many he made yesterday
in the '98 SOTU address, but his track record doesn't hold much promist
despite what he says.
--
.....Wayne Howell.....
...Port Townsend, WA..
who...@gensearch.com
Bill
Walt Horning wrote in message <36a8d50a...@news.pipeline.com>...
>The substance of Clinton address amounts to crap.
Sure... Why should Republicans pay any attention to the dozens of FACTS
that were presented by the President when they can hide behind the blanket
statement that the address was "crap". Really says alot about the quality of
your opinion, doesn't it?
>Social Security stock market investments is just another commie plot
>by the commies behind Clinton gain even more government control. (The
>best way to control people is to control their money.) While it looks
>good to possibly increase SS earnings, its really just a way for the
>government to control the stock market, by controling government
>investiments.
What about the irresponsible statements made by the Communist-Republicans
against our nation's actions in the Gulf on the very day of that action?
Tell me who really fell all over themselves to march in lock step with the
wishes of their Communist masters in Russia, China and Cuba? Who was it
through their statements against our action in the Gulf that subverted the
will of the America people, and provided 'aid and comfort' to the Communist
nations of the world? The Commie-Republican party... That's who!
>The risks are too high. Social Security was created in response in
>part to the great stock market crash of the 1930's. Now Clinton wants
>to make Social Security vulnerable to stock market crashes, the very
>thing it was to attempt to overcome.
The Great Stock Market Crash was in the 1920's not the 30's (look it up).
But I will admit that Republican irresponsiblity (Herbert Hoover) led to the
crash, that led to the depression, that led to the call for Social Security
Insurance.
>Its best to have a "mixed" portfolio, that is, our SS should be in
>stable, albeit moderate growth funds, while our extra earnings should
>be in the stock market. That's a mixed portofolio. If the feds put SS
>in the stock market, that's "all our eggs in one basket" and that's a
>formula for disaster.
President Clinton had sugguested that only 25% of the ADDITIONAL funds be
considered to be placed in stock market instruments. (Did you really listen
to the State of the Union last night, or are you just imagining what you
thought the President 'might mave said')?
Bill.
Ford
wrote:
>F. Prefect wrote:
>>
>> Clinton's State of the Union Address was basically centrist in nature
>> leaving room for bi-partisan compromise with the promise of actually
>> accomplishing something constructive for the American people during
>> the 106th Congress.
>>
>> However, the longer the republicans choose to drag out the impeachment
>> issue, the less likely the bi-partisanship necessary to reach any
>> important goals will decrease as the trial becomes a strictly partisan
>> squabble.
>
>So basically you are saying we should drop the charges because you
>really like the bribe he has offered?
>
>
>Bob
Not at all if the charges rose to a level as was the case with Richard
Nixon, I would be, as I was then, completely in favor of impeachment,
conviction and removal.
The facts are, that the charges simply don't even come close to
reaching those levels. Were this the case you not have seen what
amounted to a straight partisan vote to impeach in the House. If the
offenses truly rose to a level that warranted removal from office, you
would have seen, as was the case with Nixon, bi-partisan support for
impeachment.
F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as being a bad move.....
Douglas Adams
Bob
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:29:30 -0500, Bob <alli...@pobox.upenn.edu>
> wrote:
> >So basically you are saying we should drop the charges because you
> >really like the bribe he has offered?
> >
> >
> >Bob
>
> Not at all if the charges rose to a level as was the case with Richard
> Nixon, I would be, as I was then, completely in favor of impeachment,
> conviction and removal.
Agreed on Nixon. If he hadn't resigned, he should have been removed.
>
> The facts are, that the charges simply don't even come close to
> reaching those levels.
In your opinion, of course. It strikes me that impeachment and a trial
are perfectly reasonable responses by Congress in face of overwhelming
evidence that the President committed perjury and obstruction of
justice. The system has been setup with more than adequate safeguards
to protect the President.
> Were this the case you not have seen what
> amounted to a straight partisan vote to impeach in the House. If the
> offenses truly rose to a level that warranted removal from office, you
> would have seen, as was the case with Nixon, bi-partisan support for
> impeachment.
Possibly, but I choose to disagree. I think things like the
gerrymandering of districts have created such extremes on both sides of
the aisle that it will be tough to get 'bipartisan' support on just
about anything. Again, the Prez is protected by the 2/3 majority in the
Senate necessary to convict.
Bob
aladdinsane.
Social Security monies
to the stock market; however, the proposal originated from the GOP. Are
they a bunch
of commies?
Walt Horning wrote:
> The State of the Union address to Congress should be delivered like a
> "business report". The masses are asses because they do not realize
> that speech writers write these speeches and that Clinton, as most
> politicians, are lawyers with "court room flare" and put on an act!
>
> The substance of Clinton address amounts to crap.
>
> Social Security stock market investments is just another commie plot
> by the commies behind Clinton gain even more government control. (The
> best way to control people is to control their money.) While it looks
> good to possibly increase SS earnings, its really just a way for the
> government to control the stock market, by controling government
> investiments.
>
> The risks are too high. Social Security was created in response in
> part to the great stock market crash of the 1930's. Now Clinton wants
> to make Social Security vulnerable to stock market crashes, the very
> thing it was to attempt to overcome.
>
> Its best to have a "mixed" portfolio, that is, our SS should be in
> stable, albeit moderate growth funds, while our extra earnings should
> be in the stock market. That's a mixed portofolio. If the feds put SS
> in the stock market, that's "all our eggs in one basket" and that's a
> formula for disaster.
>
Who Cares?
>
Exactly. Walt just weren't paying attention.
We're all going to get so much free government
crap, we'll think we died and went to Mena
Heaven.
Social security is gonna get fixed.
Gonna get 10% tax cut.
Gonna boost military spending to make for
how Reagan gutted the military since '85.
Gonna get free internet for the kids.
Clinton's gonna fix it so we all get "reasonable"
health care, more free shit!
And best of all, Clinton's gonna pass more gun
control so those freaks donating that free
government stuff can't do nuthing but whine about.
>
>Clinton's State of the Union Address was basically centrist in nature
'Couse it was, sonny. EVERYBODY loves
free government shit. :)
.
>Who stands to damaged in this scenario?
US, the American peeple, that's who.
While they're darn squabbling, we're missing
out on our FREE STUFF. Dang it, we could
be tasting that free stuff now if it wernt for that
there dang "Kennie" Starr.
Walt Horning
>
>Walt Horning wrote in message <36a8d50a...@news.pipeline.com>...
>
>>The substance of Clinton address amounts to crap.
>
>
> Sure... Why should Republicans pay any attention to the dozens of FACTS
>that were presented by the President when they can hide behind the blanket
>statement that the address was "crap". Really says alot about the quality of
>your opinion, doesn't it?
Well, Greenspan just about called it "crap", and he's the "expert".
>
>>Social Security stock market investments is just another commie plot
>>by the commies behind Clinton gain even more government control. (The
>>best way to control people is to control their money.) While it looks
>>good to possibly increase SS earnings, its really just a way for the
>>government to control the stock market, by controling government
>>investiments.
>
>
> What about the irresponsible statements made by the Communist-Republicans
>against our nation's actions in the Gulf on the very day of that action?
>Tell me who really fell all over themselves to march in lock step with the
>wishes of their Communist masters in Russia, China and Cuba? Who was it
>through their statements against our action in the Gulf that subverted the
>will of the America people, and provided 'aid and comfort' to the Communist
>nations of the world? The Commie-Republican party... That's who!
"Commie-Republicans" are not members of the socialist parties that
some house Dems are members of.
>
>>The risks are too high. Social Security was created in response in
>>part to the great stock market crash of the 1930's. Now Clinton wants
>>to make Social Security vulnerable to stock market crashes, the very
>>thing it was to attempt to overcome.
>
>
> The Great Stock Market Crash was in the 1920's not the 30's (look it up).
>But I will admit that Republican irresponsiblity (Herbert Hoover) led to the
>crash, that led to the depression, that led to the call for Social Security
>Insurance.
Gee, if Clinton could identify real techicalities as good as you.
>
>>Its best to have a "mixed" portfolio, that is, our SS should be in
>>stable, albeit moderate growth funds, while our extra earnings should
>>be in the stock market. That's a mixed portofolio. If the feds put SS
>>in the stock market, that's "all our eggs in one basket" and that's a
>>formula for disaster.
>
>
> President Clinton had sugguested that only 25% of the ADDITIONAL funds be
>considered to be placed in stock market instruments. (Did you really listen
>to the State of the Union last night, or are you just imagining what you
>thought the President 'might mave said')?
25% today, 50% tomorrow, soon 100%. I do not care if its 1%. Its
wrong.
>
> Bill.
>
F. Prefect
wrote:
>Ford wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:29:30 -0500, Bob <alli...@pobox.upenn.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >So basically you are saying we should drop the charges because you
>> >really like the bribe he has offered?
>> >
>> >
>> >Bob
>>
>> Not at all if the charges rose to a level as was the case with Richard
>> Nixon, I would be, as I was then, completely in favor of impeachment,
>> conviction and removal.
>
>Agreed on Nixon. If he hadn't resigned, he should have been removed.
>
>>
>> The facts are, that the charges simply don't even come close to
>> reaching those levels.
>
>
>In your opinion, of course. It strikes me that impeachment and a trial
>are perfectly reasonable responses by Congress in face of overwhelming
>evidence that the President committed perjury and obstruction of
>justice. The system has been setup with more than adequate safeguards
>to protect the President.
>
I would agree, the safeguard is the Senate and the 2/3 majority
required to convict. This would almost always insure that the verdict
would be bi-partisan in nature. This would have been the case with
Nixon if he had not chosen to resign. The key is bi-partisan support
for both impeachment and conviction. This, to date, we have not seen
in the case of the President, thus presenting doubt that the offenses
in his case rise to a level the Framers intended for the removal of a
President.
>> Were this the case you not have seen what
>> amounted to a straight partisan vote to impeach in the House. If the
>> offenses truly rose to a level that warranted removal from office, you
>> would have seen, as was the case with Nixon, bi-partisan support for
>> impeachment.
>
>Possibly, but I choose to disagree. I think things like the
>gerrymandering of districts have created such extremes on both sides of
>the aisle that it will be tough to get 'bipartisan' support on just
>about anything. Again, the Prez is protected by the 2/3 majority in the
>Senate necessary to convict.
>
I would disagree. A straight party line vote to impeach by the House
is a dead ringer that the charges in all likelihood hold no merit and
the action by the House is not political, as was intended by the
Framers, but strictly partisan in nature.
>
>Bob
Mr. Chappel
Quayle/Horning 2000
Old Red
news:36ab46f8...@news.alt.net...
>On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:20:58 -0500, Bob <alli...@pobox.upenn.edu>
>wrote:
>>Ford wrote:
>>> >So basically you are saying we should drop the charges because you
>>> >really like the bribe he has offered?
>>> Not at all if the charges rose to a level as was the case with Richard
>>> Nixon, I would be, as I was then, completely in favor of impeachment,
>>> conviction and removal.
Hmmmm....On the level with Nixon? What level was that?
Lets see, as far as watergate went, all Nixon had done was -attempt- to spy
on the opposing political party and got caught. That in itself was certainly
no-where near enough of a criminal offense or high crime to impeach him or
force him to step down from office. What was thought -certainly- enough to
impeach him was the fact that he attempted to cover it up, abusing the power
of his office, and most importantly -lying- to the american people even
though it was a lie that didn't mean squat (certainly it meant no more than
the party hero lying about boffing Monica with a cigar). We could not trust
a President, that although he lied about something that most every
politician does, was still a lie and although we could underdstand that it
was only human and natural for him to try to cover that lie up, we could not
let a man in holding as high a position as President of the US get away with
it. And as they say, the rest is history.
But now, to excuse the party hero Clinton for perfectly parallel crimes,
Liberals, especially the liberal press must vilify Nixon and blow watergate
completely out of proportion to anything Clinton (including sexual
harassment) could -possibly- of done, because you see Party Hero Clinton
supports "the one right and just party cause" where Nixon didn't support the
one right and just partys cause, and by the very standards that define a
Liberal, if a person supports the one right and just "cause", then no matter
how vile that person is in achieving the one right and just partys ends, by
it's very right and just definition, right and just is right and just no
matter how stalinesque the Party Hero may become.
>>Agreed on Nixon. If he hadn't resigned, he should have been removed.
Then why not Clinton? There is really no difference what-so-ever in what
Clinton has done and what Nixon did, unless of course you consider that the
Liberal Press didn't like Nixon and the Liberal Press eats thier breakfast
out of Bill Clinton's laundry burned shorts.
The hypocrisy of liberals when Comparing Party Hero Bill Clinton to Richard
Nixon just amazes me. Clinton is 10 times as dastardly as Nixon ever
possibly could of been. At least Nixon had the courage, honesty and respect
for the Office and this Nation to step down before his presidency even
became 1/2 the joke that Bill Clinton's presidency is.
>>> The facts are, that the charges simply don't even come close to
>>> reaching those levels.
What "facts"? Are you saying that spying on the opposing political party and
then covering it up and lying to the American people about it is a much
greater offense than lying about adultry, covering it up and committing
perjury and then lying about that?
How do you get off with that conclusion?
Anyone that thinks Nixon was worse than Clinton is indeed a walking talking
liberal hypocrite!
gdy52150
wrote:
and you are a damn fool. But your poor attempt at rewriting history
until it suits you is just more prove of it.
>
>
>
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Aircontrol
Aircontrol
GDY why dont you go back to where you came from!!!
\
gdy52150
wrote:
I'm right here in your face, get use to it.
Aircontrol
Oh is that the jackass i saw today?
gdy52150
wrote:
no that was the Democrats kicking the shit out of your sorry ass.
Ready for the vote on the coup attempt tomorrow?
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
home of "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of
The Month Award"
Do your patriotic duty an reward your favorite
cackling loon by voting today
at http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Aircontrol
My ass isnt getting kicked tomorrow......I think it is better to have a
lame duck President then a environmental wacko treehugger in office! I
am content even though justice hasnt been serve for America!
gdy52150
whine louder so we can feel your pain,
Aircontrol
HEY DOPEY!!!! IF I WERE WHINING I WOULDN'T BE CONTENT WITH THE
OUTCOME!!!
gdy52150
<He'sGuilty.kickhim.@ut.com> wrote:
yes we see how contented you are. Shit if you were a cow, you would
yield sour cream at this point.