Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Carter was a democrat and he cut Amtrak's subsidy. Bill Clinton was President when all but one of the 11.09.01 perpetrators (I like the term terrorists but it seem to be "Politically Correct" to call them "Militants") got into the USA without the need of a security check or consular review by picking up their USA visas at a Ryadh credit card office. Kerry helped Kennedy get the big bucks for the Big Dig without the long overdue North Station South Station rail connector. I could go on. There are good Democrats and the are not so good Demcorats. And the same is true of Republicans and us. I have a particular thing about Hillary because the very fact that she is loyal to her husband means that she tolerated infidelity. I think if there is to be a first Woman President, it should be someone who has a solid family connection without any hanky panky. She also supports too many ideas that I think are kind of wierd even from a liberal point of view. And to correct a previous mistatement, yes there was one Democrat who voted for Clinton's impeachment. Lieberman. [/quote] right, right, right, and Ronald Reagan sold arms to the Iranians to prevent the release of the hostages until after the 1980 election so that he wouldn't lose to Carter, and later turned a blind eye to the illegal arms deals in the mid-eighties in order to funnel money to the contras in Nicaragua who facillitated the killings of thousands of innocents. It goes both ways. America rarely produces a "decent person" by any legitimate standard for president anymore. Clinton lied, Bush lied (about two VERY different things, mind you) and it all ends up getting forgotten about in the end. Oliver North, the sleazy little worm who trampled on the United States Constitution and was a figurehead behind the Iran-Contra affair is now a military analyst for Fox News. There's sleaze on both sides, who can't admit this? But you do have to admit that the current administration, whilst being very pro-big business does seem to be very anti-amtrak. Amtrak, while providing a VERY IMPORTANT PUBLIC SERVICE, is not a great money-making oppurtunity, and therefore falls of the radar of the many big-business greedy cats who can only think in terms of large profit margins. Amtrak is especially not going to get the chance to become a great money-making oppurtunity if it's kept in such a shoddy state of funding by the current amtrak-indifferent administration. Like I said, Amtrak, just like roads and highways, is a PUBLIC SERVICE. Public services should be supported to an extent by tax-payer dollars no matter how much whining is done by republicans about it. You pay into the society that you live under and grin and bear the fact that you won't be able to buy yourself a new big screen t.v. this year. I can't believe that all of the lousy and ridiculous things that this country spends tax money, you all are whining about tax money being spent on PASSENGER RAILROAD SERVICE, on a railroad forum, no less! I'm a bit confused...
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag