Lessee: hysterical language, followed by a request that another poster put down a ‘hysteria novel’…should I not have been amused? My apologies.
BTW, what does ‘exhonorate’ mean? It’s not in my dictionary. (If you meant ‘exonerate’, that word doesn’t mean what you evidently think it means.)
Please tell me that was a joke.
"Stop reading that biased book and read this completely unbiased research published by the Cato Institute. Forget that they are a fiscally conservative group, and that their conclusions can be summed up as, “Lowering spending is Good!”, they’re way more objective than anything you’ll cite.
The joke is in how you sum up their positions.
I realize I’m jumping on this late, and I may well have missed someone’s addressing my points already. If so, I apologise. But what really cheeses me off, far more than Hillary’s blanket assumption of first right to everyone’s paycheck, is that Senator Clinton choose to make this statement of intent in California. And she’s a Senator from New York. None of the NY papers have mentioned word one of this - and considering how much attention she received during her run for Senate and the aid she was given… I find it unlikely that this wasn’t noticed by them. Just not mentioned to her constiuency at large.
Reason #4935 to actually read the thread before making a comment almost surely to have been covered by post #5. :wally
I’d take the hit if I hadn’t read to post #50 already, and it seemed to be devolving into a debate about what was and wasn’t allowed in the Constitution. I’m not trying to say that is an unimportant issue, but as of that post, my point still hadn’t been addressed. :wally
