cre8tiff

Leading Republican candidate for POTUS?

Recommended Posts

It would be useful to separate the soldier's equipment issue from the no-bid, $100-per-laundry-bag, wrong-$700,000-computer-system-so-just-bulldoze-and-set-fire-to-it, flying-pallets-of-Benjamins-to-Iraq-then-lose-it-all issues. That's where the issue is - the soldier equipment issue is pennies, the wastage and corruption issue is billions.

Exactly. I think that the whole mission is a waste of money and has not made our country any safer. However, even if you are for the war, you can't be happy with the wasteful nature in which it is being run. No well run business would ever tolerate a manager running a wasteful program even if they agreed with the program.

 

Money is money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be useful to separate the soldier's equipment issue from the no-bid, $100-per-laundry-bag, wrong-$700,000-computer-system-so-just-bulldoze-and-set-fire-to-it, flying-pallets-of-Benjamins-to-Iraq-then-lose-it-all issues. That's where the issue is - the soldier equipment issue is pennies, the wastage and corruption issue is billions.

 

Unfortunately we have been buy $1,000 crapers and $500 hammers for years. I hate it, as should everyone else, but don't pretend that is something new. With regard to the no-bid construction contracts I have absolutely no problem with them. Of course I know more about how they work than the average Joe. Like the government has 7 years from the completion of the project to audit the contractors books. Don't you think that congress isn't going to demand to look over them with a fine tooth comb. In the long run, it will be cheaper than had it been a bid project, because the contractors don't have to put all kinds of CYA contingency allowances in their bids.

 

I hate government spending, and would like to see the military be the only thing are tax dollars fund. So, I'm not happy with what Bush has done to reduce spending (which I believe he has when you discount military and emergency relief). That being said, he was the best choice between two horrible options as president in both of his elections, and I feel confident that both Gore and Kerry would have spent much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it begs the question of why people have such strong negatives about her. What is it that she does that people fnd repugnant while finding it merely distasteful in other candidates?

Truly curious. All thoughtful answers apreciated.

 

I don't "hate" Hillary, but I would absolutely never vote for her.

 

The Clintons have a very long, well-documented list of corruption going back to their days in Arkansas. Whitewater is the most high-profile example, but there is also evidence of tax evasion (for which they can't be prosecuted for now, as the statute of limitations has run out). Themost egrigious example, IMO, was the fact that her brothers were caught taking bribes to lobby for consideration for Presidential pardons...

 

Hillary’s brothers were paid more than $500,000 to lobby the president for pardons that were then granted to con artists and drug dealers. For a fee of $400,000, Hugh Rodham successfully pushed for a pardon for drug kingpin Carlos Anabel Vignali, convicted of shipping a half-ton of cocaine from L.A. to Minnesota. His father was a big contributor to the Democratic Party — he gave more than $150,000 to the Los Angeles Democrats. Obviously, the investment was a shrewd one.

 

Tony Rodham advocated a pardon for Edgar and Vanna Jo Gregory. The Gregorys, who owned a carnival company, defrauded a federal bank. When the pardon was publicized, Hillary stated that Tony was “not paid” by the Gregorys for his work on the pardon. Tony repeated that line on the Larry King Show.

 

After an investigation, the House Government Operations Committee disagreed and announced that Hillary’s statement was inaccurate. Now, a federal bankruptcy court overseeing the carnival company’s bankruptcy is about to rule on whether over $100,000 paid to Tony Rodham at the time of the pardons was a loan or payment for “consulting.”

 

The Gregorys contributed over $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign and other Democratic causes. These folks were well known to the Clintons — they visited them at Camp David and were hired to stage two carnivals on the White House grounds — paid for by the taxpayers.

 

That and Bill's issuing of a whopping 141 pardons on his last day in office are the main reasons that I don't want to see another Clinton in the White House. Throw in Hillary's socialized health care agenda from Bill's first term and Hillary's subsequent metamophasis from liberal to political chameleon and it's no wonder why a large number of people refuse to vote for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally agree except for #2, Hillary is transparently a poll-watching straw in the wind. I get the very strong impression she has no real positions other than winning this race.

 

The POTUS thing is dead on - I'd rather we had an elitist intellectual titan in office than the drooling drunk from the end of the bar, which is what we've got.

 

you think that fat rig is smart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you think that fat rig is smart?

Which fat rig? The intellectual elitist titan I was referring to is on neither side right now. I'd just rather have one of those than the mental pygmy currently using the crayons on the Oval Office desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Romney '08.

He's the only candidate with more position shifts than Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.