Rep. Foley...
2006-10-02 02:41:52 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Have you seen Q berts post regarding the child molesting libs and the Dem Presidents who pardon them (must be a campaign contribution thing--if you pay enough--you can rape a child and the Dems will pardon you:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArvKk8e8.xs7raMEy9EjtJDsy6IX?qid=20061002061623AAvQmPr
2006-10-02 02:59:37 · answer #1 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I advise that the top shrink for contributions be achieved away with, and that the optimal payouts in retirement nonetheless proceed to be as they're, adjusted for inflation. Social protection isn't a "provide away" application yet one that all of us make a contribution to love a savings plan, and could be shielded from different makes use of via the government. Do you settle or disagree and why? while you're so worried approximately it then why do not you; first positioned it lower back into the interior maximum sector and make to have been no can take out funds from it for their own activity, 2d pay lower back each and every penny you have borrowed from the two Social protection and Medicare, third take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over here yet in no way paid a penny to it, and finally have it a similar for each guy or woman; in different words government officers are to take section in it and in the event that they desire some thing extra they do it on their own without the tax payers investment it?yet, the economic stytem feeding the imbalances had in no way been quite replaced. They, a collection of pupils, stated that one and all expenses of activity could be 3% or much less for each guy or woman to become wealthy if needed (that would desire to be real additionally to taces). the final economic situation could be, they reported, whilst there have been no expenses of activity. Why not attempt this answer? the wealthy might nonetheless be wealthy. My question is: whilst soial protection will become a situation related to federal debts, why not artwork with a balanced or benefit funds and spend no extra desirable than is presented in, as any kinfolk has to attempt for? Why not ban all loobying presents with a view to get rules that serve the rustic? God bless u.s..
2016-10-18 08:35:56 · answer #2 · answered by goodknight 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another Greedy Obtuse Pervert in God's Own Party. What a surprise!
2006-10-02 03:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You see, this is how it is supposed to work. Immoral person has his immoralities exposed - and he resigns.
Once upon a time, even the Democrats had morals enough to resign when exposed for being a perverted scumbag. But Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Bill Clinton changed all that. Now, the Dems exult in their immorality and corruption.
2006-10-02 03:14:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
And so what's your point? That some Republicans, or people who believe in morals, are hypocrites? Sure, some are.
That people fail to live up to a moral code, sometimes that they themselves advocate, is not shocking. I'd rather have someone encouraging fidelity to a spouse and they fall short of that than to have someone say it doesn't matter and be consistent with their lifestyle. I'd rather have someone say it is bad to steal and they themselves steal, than to have someone say stealing is ok.
Bill Clinton (as one example) made a tremendous show of church-going, and of heated defenses of his marriage to Hilary and denials of infidelity...did you share your disgust of him? Or was he ok for some reason?
2006-10-02 02:47:16 · answer #5 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hey Lucky, how old was Monica? And why did Dennis Hastert not report this last year when he knew about it? Yeah, he was forced to resign all right because the media busted him. I guess you'd be ok if he never got caught right?
2006-10-02 02:47:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Are you suggesting Dems are amoral and have nothing to fear?
If that is your case, I would rather have a party of morals other than woman-drowning,dress-staining party.
2006-10-02 02:51:56 · answer #7 · answered by Kelly T 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No Spike - an immoral one.
Good riddance to him. We Republicans do not condone his behavior.
2006-10-02 02:46:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
OH gee and look on the news...the GOP leaders are saying they knew about it months ago? and did nothing...typical!
2006-10-02 02:54:50 · answer #9 · answered by lifetimefamily 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unlike the ultra moral Dems who don't even have the sense to step down (Barney Frank, Clinton, Kennedy, Kennedy, et al)
2006-10-02 02:45:39 · answer #10 · answered by kellettgal 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋