[brasscitybluenwhite]

Sorry Jay I just read ur reply

[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

JV - there you go again using age to belittle someone. It seems whenever you disagree with someone, you bring up your age and "wisdom". Really - you're not all that much older than me. Lets give that part a rest. And don't tell me to "do a little research." I was at O.L.P. on 9/11 and witnessed much of it firsthand. I followed everything closely after that - I fail to see your reasoning and frankly think its a bunch of you know what. Hey - I'm being just as honest as you always are! You claim that Bush kept us safer for longer than anyone else - again, what other president had to deal with a terror attack in one of our major east coast cities? None. And how did he keep us safe? By allowing 9/11 to happen? Because I don't think that's keeping us too safe. Oh, that's right, it's all Clinton's fault.

I'm not belittling anyone. You were 9, so I don't expect you to remember Desert Storm or why we were there. I don't expect you to remember the "deal" that was made then to not march into Baghdad and remove Saddaam then. It's not a slam, it's reality - you were 9 years old and 9 year olds don't deal with things like that or care.

So instead of attacking me, answer the question. Why were we fighting Desert Storm and what did Saddaam agree to to not lose his life THEN? (and not follow through when ordered to 17 times more/later.)

I would answer it for you but again, I'd appreciate if you would find out for yourself first. If you are still having trouble, I'd be happy to fill you in.

THAT is the research I asked you to do...not on 9/11. Geez. Read the post please before going off on someone.

BTW, I'm almost 15 years older than you if you want to know.

Take a pill.

[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by aroundthecorner059

Where was the outcry from the Republican right when Bushs spending was spiraling out of control? Even then it was everyone elses fault but not Bushs.

I was one of the one's crying out - I don't want spending. Smaller government, less intrusion into our lives, less power for politicians, fewer taxes. The spending package right now is only a way to enslave people to the government. Once again, it shows that the Washington Democrats are the party of money.

[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

No. A capitalist society will crumble without spending. instead of being like that, look at it this way. those same children have been given money by their parents to buy candy at a store. The group spends it all at the candy store. The candy store owner survives this months rent until he can get the next batch of kids to pay next month.

without this months rent, he would have had to close up shop.

Exactly, but the government should not be the ones controlling the money. It should be the citizens. Same thing as when taxes are cut, tax revenues go up as people do something with the more money that they have. That kind of freedom is being overlooked with this spending package.

[JayCT]

It seems that this thread has gone way off topic and is not returning to it. I am just going to close it now. If you wish to debate this issue please post a new thread on the appropriate board. Thank you, JayCT, Moderator