Re: Clinton Welfare Reform?????????????
 

Man, you got a real "boogie man" mentality. Here, this is clipped from the Demoratic party platform of 1992:

Welfare Reform
Welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life. We want to break the cycle of welfare by adhering to two simple principles: no one who is able to work can stay on welfare forever, and no one who works should live in poverty. We will continue to help those who cannot help themselves. We will offer people on welfare a new social contract. We'll invest in education and job training, and provide the child care and health care they need to go to work and achieve long-term self- sufficiency. We will give them the help they need to make the transition from welfare to work, and require people who can work to go to work within two years in available jobs either in the private sector or in community service to meet unmet needs. This will restore the covenant that welfare was meant to be: a promise of temporary help for people who have fallen on hard times.

complete document is here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/past.platforms/dem92/index.shtml.orig

The facts on why Clinton vetoed the Republican version is here, and the fact that in the end we got a bill acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats, except for the marginalized extremists like you, shows why divided government based on compromise works:

http://nwcitizen.com/usa/welfare-reform.html

There will never be enough evidence there, as the History Channel found out when they got sued for doing a show on that book, but in the 1930s when Lyndon first ran for the Senate his opponent came up dead too, dead as in murdered. The fact it happened in Texas, and that Lyndon and many other Texans stood to gain the most in Kennedy's death, along with a whole slew of accomplices right in the neighborhood, especially th NOLA mob, really makes such a neat package it is too hard to resist. Elements in the Dallas PD set known nut Lee Harvey up for a patsy, while a professional mob hit man out of NOLA whacks Kennedy, and then local Dallas mob wannabe Ruby cleans up the loose ends. LBJ and Marcello live happily ever after.

Join the Ilk Club
 

I have lived in the south for thirty years. Thru that time every racist I have ever known as used "welfare" as a code word for "poor blacks" whom your average southern white over the age of 50 is convnced are people who don't like to work and who love to suck the public tit. Its just a well known fact. As I said, its not even a problem any more, but every racist and the politicians who covet their votes are still screaming about it. Our brainwashed store clerk sounds like he caught a dose of it somewhere.

As far as Lk1 and I's ilkish views, I was really ok with Bush and was in support of him in the initial time after 911. He earned what he is getting, all on his own, it is not some knee jerk hatred. As I have said, if he had dealt completely with Afganistan, I'd probably vote for the guy, and would have looked the other way a lot more if he then decided to do up Iraq. He earns being despised by putting us all into great danger. The CIA lists the three most probable al-Queda targets as New York, Houston, and Washington DC, as there are targets in those cities that will cripple the entire country if they are destroyed. Since me and my kids live in Target B, I despise Bush because he has put my family in danger. I wish for nothing more than him being driven from office for that one reason. I am not a kneejerk Democrat. I would have voted McCain over Gore in a heartbeat.

Re: Re: Clinton Welfare Reform?????????????
 

Thanks Kirk, I am busy working at the moment and the response I got makes me think poorly of my fellow humans. So, rather than go on a rant, or spend the time to gather the links you did, I just let is slide. Seems to be another example of blind rage at Bill Clinton for being an effective President for all Americans, something the rabid republicans have put all their energy into resisting. Thanks, Jim

Clinto was the most conservative democrat in 50 yrs. They just didn't like him because he was getting all the poontang while they got nuthin

If it were just that straight forward. Unfortunately it seems to be the glue that unites republicans in a fashion like Hitler used the Jews in Germany. Whenever they feel low, they just wallow in some Clinton bashing and all is well until they need another fix. Nothing short of rabid hatred without reason. Jim

Its interesting you should say that. A friend of mine made a comment this morning about how he felt Bush harnassed anti-arab racism in the aftermath of 911 in order to invade Iraq, and I was struck how this connected yesterday to the remark GermanStar made about this being a genocidal lovefest when I first arrived on this forum. My friend said the psychology was simple, you get everybody revved up to hate Jews, and given a choice between Lodz, Krakow and Warsaw, it's not going to make much difference to the people which city you wipe out.

The only way to get 100% security is by having a police state. I would fight against the government under those intolerable impositions. I will not surrender freedom out of fear.

Have you ever been on a large ocean-going vessel? Ever thought about searching one?

It would bring the world economy to a halt if every vessel coming to American were inspected thoroughly before tying up to a pier. There is a constant stream of vessels coming in and there is no possible way that we can efficiently and cost-effectively inspect them all within US territorial waters.

That's non-partisan, from the 9/11 Commission.

We are developing systems, relationships and plans with governemnts of major exporting countries to inspect ships prior to departure and track ships underweigh.

Back to the topic of where Kerry stands


Kerry Envisions No More U.S. Troops for Iraq
Aug 1, 9:30 AM (ET)

By Patricia Wilson
DUBLIN, Ohio (Reuters) - Democratic White House challenger John Kerry said on Sunday he did not anticipate sending more American troops to Iraq and promised a fresh start with U.S. allies "burned" by President Bush.

Despite some clamor among Democrats for an accelerated U.S. military withdrawal, Kerry said Washington must stay the course but asserted he could do a better job of convincing foreign leaders to help with security and reconstruction in Iraq.

The Massachusetts senator, who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force to oust Saddam Hussein, said Bush misled Americans.

"Everybody knows that just saying that there are weapons of mass destruction didn't make it so," he said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

"Just saying you could fight a war on the cheap didn't make it so. Ignoring the advice of generals as to how many troops we needed didn't make our troops safer who were there."

Kerry criticized Bush's Iraq policy in his speech on Thursday accepting the Democratic nomination as the president's opponent in the Nov. 2 election, but beyond holding out the prospect of greater international participation, he did not offer the exit strategy many Americans are looking for.

He rejected the suggestion that his plans were vague. "No, not at all," Kerry said.

"The problem is that this administration has lost credibility, they've pushed countries away."

"And I think that a fresh start changes the equation, particularly changes it for leaders in other countries who have great difficulty right now associating themselves with our policy and with the United States because of the way this administration has burned those bridges."

In the past, Kerry has not ruled out sending more Americans to join the 140,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq but has said he would encourage other countries, particularly Arab nations, to contribute forces.

'REAL PARTNERSHIP' WITH ALLIES

"I don't envision it," he said on Sunday when asked if he would send more U.S. soldiers. "I believe that my leadership and my plan to approach these countries -- and I'm not negotiating it publicly -- I know what I want to do. I know what I believe can be achieved."

Kerry has argued that Bush alienated traditional U.S. allies by invading Iraq without their support and without United Nations backing that they were unwilling to bail him out now. He said he would offer them real partnership that would attract practical support from NATO allies and the United Nations.

"We've lost respect, we've lost influence," he said as he made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows with his running mate North Carolina Sen. John Edwards while on a two-week, 3,500-mile post-convention trip through battleground states.

"I know that I can do a better job of providing a rationale for those countries to understand their stake in the outcome and I believe we can put together a very different kind of alliance," Kerry said.

Opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans now believe the decision to invade Iraq last year was a mistake. Kerry and Edwards, who also voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion, have refused to call their votes a mistake.

"We believed that the president needed the authority to deal with Saddam Hussein and that him being gone is a very good thing," Edwards said. "We did not know that the president would not use his authority the way he should use it."

Kerry, who hinted earlier in the campaign that foreign leaders had told him they hoped he would beat Bush, said he "didn't think there's a leader in the world ... who doesn't understand what's happened to America in the world today."

That is the most inane, dumbfoundingly blinkered buncha crap you've yet foisted upon thinking people.

Do you think the reason only one man died through bigotry after 9/11 (and that poor sod was a Sikh!) was an accident? The government realized immediately that all Muslims in the USA were instantly in danger. The governments at every level acted swiftly and immediately to protect Muslims. Recall that the President entered a Mosque, unshod as required, and said kind things about Islam. That was real leadership.

It would have been easy as heck for him to have gone the other way, as Roosevelt did, and "protect" Muslims in camps. Or restrict their liberty, etc.

By god, you guys are so filled with hate that you have lost the ability to think straight.

Botnst

PS For the 1,000th time: No, I am not a neoconazi, I don't luv dubbie, I am not a Republican, I don't work for Halliburton and I did not have sex with that man, Dick Cheney.

Well, the reason why the comment struck me was when I arrived, the answer for any set back in Iraq from a number of you was "lets take a town and wipe them out so the others will know we mean business", "lets just wip them all out" etc. Those are comments typical of a population wipped into to genocidal hatred. I also heard it on radio talk shows and in conversations, and given what snibble has to say about his arabic surname, add it all up. Its a pretty convincing argument.

It was from of number of you guys. I certainly don't believe that is a useful tactic or long-term stratgey. Remember, I'm the "target closely, avoid civilians" guy.


"add it all up"... I am so glad my algebraic solutions to life are not so burdened by conspiratorial suspicions. That must get awfully tiring.

B

"...and I did not have sex with that man, Dick Cheney."

Well, at least there is one thing we must agree on, because even though I think the Haliburton connection is a red herring, I find Dick Cheney repulsive. Unlike Bush, who I would have a beer with and probably be able to have a conversation with, well, at least after a few beers anyway, Cheney is a guy I don't think Bush even drinks with - which could explain why they rarely travel in the same states at the same time. Jim

Point taken. I only used the cargo containers as a quantifiable example of how far we still have to go. The main point was that Bush is talking out of his ass when it comes to national security.
After my last post I had a chance to think more about what would make us, as a nation, safer. My ideal president would stand before the Congress and nation and call for a Apollo style program to make us energy self sufficient within 20 years. That would be a noble goal and TRULY protect us from our unhealthy dependence on foreign oil. Instead we get "Fly me to the Moon", the gay marriage bogeyman and hyper restrictions on stem cell research.

Insofar as we agree that staying focused on the prize is an issue for non-partisanship, I agree with your characterization that Congress spends and inordinate amount of time and my money dilly-dallying on inconsequentials (I believe) in order to avoid important decisions.

That way they can go home and say, "I tried to (protect/restrict) abortion (or firearms or drug us or whatever) but those sleazy MoFos on the other side of the aisle thwarted us on this vitally important issue. Please send me money for my re-election so that I can continue to wage this battle in your name."

Then the PACs send us snail mail warning that abortion (is going to be decrared unconstitutional OR unrestricted) unless I immediately send them buckets of money, which they will burn on single-issue character asassination or misrepresentations of their opponent.

Welcome to life in the era of campaign finance reform.