1 - 10 Next
In response to:

A D.C. cure: Take the Hard Votes

olddoc4444 Wrote: 16 hours ago (6:02 PM)
I agree. We should triple the salary of congresspersons. When they leave office, if their net worth has grown by more than that salary and their investments would reasonably support, they should be charged with a crime. Give their campaign war chests to the treasury when they leave office.
So people could come here, with no prospect of covering the barest expenses of their care, and compel healthcare workers, suppliers etc, and ultimately the taxpayers to absorb the cost? I know it is done, on compassioante grounds, all the time. But that is done mostly for problems that are of the non-epidemic variety. Most of those problems are not a significant danger to those workers and their families.... So where does the line get drawn between compassionate use of the great wealth this country has earned (with the help of God's blessing) and killing the goose that lays the golden egg?
I think the Dem's fortunes would be better if they had governed instead of campaigned for all these years. But governing more or less requires results--- it's just too hard when one is trying to build on the faulty foundation of liberalism.
I have an honest question for any democrats reading, regarding Harry Reid. Are you really comfortable with the fact that, if he doesn't like a piece of legislation, he either never lets it be put up for a vote, or if he ever does, he puts it off until after whatever election is coming up? If so, would you be comfortable with a republican majority leader doing the same? Like most conservatives, I feel we send them there to vote. If the constituents like the way he or she voted, he or she might be re-elected. If not, well, it's what you signed up for.
I have already voted. For the first time in my life, I have voted a straight ticket (R, of course. I used to think that was irresponsible. I also used to think democrats were just well intentioned, but misinformed, people. But no more. There is just so much that one has to buy into to be a "D". One has to believe that we are NOT headed for a demographic and fiscal disaster with Social Security and Medicare. One has to believe that allowing countless millions across our southern border will not have negative affects on American citizens. ... I could go on and on, and it would be informative and entertaining if you-all posted more. But no more forgiveness for current day dems. We are no longer in the age of Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey etc., where men who loved our country had honest disagreements about how to achieve its goals.
My friends in law enforcement tell me, in spite of what we hear about meth labs, most of it comes from Mexico.
The degree to which Hillary "doesn't get it" is startling. I harken back to the Hillarycare days, when she said "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized business in this country"
Doesn't matter. Judges who have been on the bench too long almost always become enamored of their power, and thus turn liberal, since they intuitively know which side prefers unlimited power in the government.
In response to:

Dear Mitt and Jeb: No, Thanks

olddoc4444 Wrote: Oct 24, 2014 8:49 AM
Scott, you must remember that sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander, when the goose is a D and the gander is an R.
Funny you should mention David Kay. In his testimony to congress, he said (I parphrase) that at no time during his investigation did he find evidence that anyone, in the build up to the war, ever lied, massaged facts or omitted anything with regard to the existence of WMD.
1 - 10 Next