I know why Republicans here haven't mentioned this, but was surprised no one else has. I am just left without words when trying to describe my reaction to the GOP changing the rules to allow congressmen and women to keep their leadership posts even after being indicted on felonies. This rule was put into place by Republicans in the early 90's in order to kick out a Democrat that had been indicted so the GOPs first order of business after the election is to raise the debt ceiling and bankrupt this country for our children, change ethic rules to keep their corrupt leaders in place, start drumming up their war drums for Iran, and eliminate the only incentive businesses have to provide health insurance for employees - very unifying
I believe our resident GOP supporters are already ignoring it. http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86907
change 4 to 40, and i'll agree. or 400, and i'll agree. people move mountains to protect their own power. doesn't matter if they have a D or R by their name. it's freaking ridiculous. if he did the crime, he should be held accountable, the same way the rest of us are.
The neo-conservative movement likes to preach consistency and principle above all and holds relativism to be an evil but when it comes down preserving they're power they're willing toss principle away.
Agreed. It's not that us conservatives are ignoring it, I just think most of us agree with what's been said. However it's important that you said "IF he did the crime." I don't agree with the fact that if you are indicted on a crime that you should be removed from office. If you are convicted of a felony...adios, regardless of political leanings.
That being said, while I lean towards the right I really don't consider myself a conservative by any means and since I don't have the edit feature, I can't go back and change it.
The American people rightly rejected this collection of lies on November 2nd. Why are you still trotting it out?
raise the debt ceiling and bankrupt this country for our children the negative effects of a massive debt are well documented and basic economics. “There is no question that as deficits There is no question that as deficits go up, contrary to what some have said, go up, contrary to what some have said, it does affect long it does affect long-term interest rates. It term interest rates. It does have a negative impact on the does have a negative impact on the economy, unless attended. economy, unless attended.” –Alan Greenspan, Testimony before the Senate Banking Committee Testimony before the Senate Banking Committee February 11, 2003 change ethic rules to keep their corrupt leaders in place so it is just happens to be that the GOP changed the rules right before their leader will be indicted? start drumming up their war drums for Iran Powell is saying Iran is pursing missle systems, exile groups are coming out and saying Iran is hiding WMD plants from the UN...doesn't all this sound a lil Familiar? eliminate the only incentive businesses have to provide health insurance for employees if you eliminate the only financial reasoning for a company to offer health insurance - do you really think companies are going to just eat that cost? Health costs are already soaring. .
What on earth is this? Greenspan's quote (not your butchering of it, but the actual quote) needs to be taken in its *long-term* context. You are not doing that. Here is a dramatic oversimplification, but something that holds with regard to the level of national debt. When rates are low, the economy is in recovery mode. The added liquidity is needed to spur economic growth. Leverage should be employed. Debt should be issued when money is cheap. When money is expensive (rates are high), debt should be paid down, and is paid down because typically when rates are high, inflation is being fought. Inflation is brought about by rapid economic growth, in the economic times that we now live in. With growth comes a rise in the tax base, and a subsequent surplus. Very simple, Chump. Very simple. Why can you not grasp this very basic premise? This should not be hard.
Agreed. But I liked it better before, when they at least *tried* to hide their contempt of the democratic process. The recent trend of blatant corruption and willful disregard of the law in broad daylight is downright scary.
I apologize for my poor paste of his quote, I dunno what I did there no where in your response did you address any of my points (or your assurtion that they are lies)- so I will assume you conceed the points - I will expect your aplogy for calling me a liar ASAP
