Comments & Feedback

Why should the government, better yet tax payers, provide your health care? Where does the constitution provide you a sense of entitlement? Since tax payers are going to pay your health care, can I also dictate that you become a vegitarian, that you limit calories to 1200 a day, that you participate in 45 minutes of aerobic exercise a day, that you complete 2 crossword puzzles a day, that you not participate in any extreme activities or sports such a hang glinding, rock climbing, etc; that you not participate in unprotected sex ever, etc. If you want me to pay for your health care you better live responsibly.

—

Rational,

In response to your March 21st reply.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been offline for several days.

Your information regarding Gary Gensler and Brooksley Born is essentially accurate however you neglect the fact that Gensler's associate advisor positions in the Clinton Administration were essentially just that, advisory. Bernie Sanders also pointed out at these hearings that Gensler worked hand in hand with Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan on the issue of derivative regulation.

I would hardly call that a "strong Clinton position". I believe both Gensler and Greenspan issued bad advice to Clinton. At that time, no-one in their right mind would have not listened to Greenspan. Born was about the only one with courage enough to do that and in fact it was some 2 years earlier that the controversy started. This controversy was going on at the same time that the Republican Congress was obsessed with digging up Clinton's sexual adventures and moving toward impeachment.

Now you can believe what you want but I see your statement blaming Clinton as misdirected. Maybe he was somewhat "asleep at the switch" for not taking enough time to understand the issue. Bottom line, this was not an issue that Clinton even remotely drove and no reliable sources credit it to him. Remember again how the CFMA 2000 legislation was passed. It was not a separate bill debated on by either house but a last minute insertion into the enormous omni-bus bill. Now if you think that Bill Clinton at that time could have somehow persuaded a Republican controlled Congress to "slip that in", you're being pretty naive. He didn't even have the option to veto it without vetoing the omni-bus bill. There's plenty of things you can use to find fault with Bill Clinton, but this one's a stretch.

All Presidents are often in the position where they don't necessarily have the expertise in the occasional issue and rely on what their advisers tell them. God knows we lived through the last eight years with virtually daily evidence of that. I could point out numerous instances where G. W. Bush allowed the economy to go down the toilet without even realizing it was happening. His advisers and his political intellect told him tax cuts could fix anything.

You appear to have a thing against Clinton and I can understand and actually respect that feeling, however I think you are off base on this issue. I've heard more than a couple right wing pundits attempt the same argument but it doesn't hold water. It's just an attempt to pass blame onto someone else. If this was such a big issue to them where's the outcry been for the last eight years? Republicans have been able to pass virtually anything they wanted for the first six years of the Bush administration.

You can go on hating Clinton and that's OK, but if you really are rational, you'll see that attempting to blame this on him is irrational. Had Gramm-Leach-Blailey not gone through, there would not have been an AIG issue at all. That was the real start and it is one that needs to be undone to prevent this in the future.

— 1NewDay

And what does this have to do with the investigation of Palin? And where are Palins tax returns?? McCain can give all he wants because his wife is a billionair! And McCains wife did not disclose her tax returns!

— Dawn Pittsburgh PA

THE MEDIA AND THE PEOPLE OF ALASKA HAVE ALREADY PROVED THAT HER BRIDGE TO NO WHERE STORY IS NOT TRUE

SHE HAS BEEN RECEIVING EARMARKS WHEN SHE WAS MAYOR AND ALSO CONTINUED AS GOVERNOR. SHE HAS REQUESTED EARMARKS THIS YEAR .

PUT ON EBAY IT DIDN'T SELL SO SHE HAD TO SELL AT A LOST AND NOW SHE BILLING ALASKA'S CITIZENS FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR HER FAMILY.

AND WHAT HAS THE GREAT REFORMER DONE FOR WOMEN IN ALASKA, THEY HAVE THE HIGHEST RATE FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, THAT IS A ISSUE THAT WOMEN SHOULD INSIST THAT SHE BRING TO THE TABLE. IF SHE DIDN'T FIGHT FOR THE WOMEN OF HER STATE, I CANT BELIEVE SHE WOULD FIGHT FOR THE WOMEN AS VP

— jennyp

You took the words right out of my mouth. I continue to wait and listen to what BO is selling us.

—

I think we all need to understand what the issues are and are they in line with what's best for the country.

Palin didn't fire the state trooper, she fired the Public Safety Commissioner because that person didn't fire the state trooper.

Doesn't this sound like more of Bush-Cheney tactics. Do we really want someone running this country that thinks emotionally rather than logically. We have a lot of fake allies, who are really hidden enemies, just waiting for such a mistake. We have no military power at home to do anything about anything and the world now knows it.

— SickofBiasedPolls

Leave a comment ...

As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.

Stop Tracking

Back To Top