Dean,
>>
>>I hope so too. However, this nonsense about the "Social Security Crisis" and privatizing it to fix it, will only add to it. Guess what? There's no "crisis". Social Security is solvent through 2038 at 1.6% growth (worst case scenario) according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of course, at that rate, the stock market will tank, along with people's retirement accounts.
>
>I remember back when Clinton and Bushes first term, many democrats were crying about how bad Social Security was and how in a couple of decades it will go belly-up. Now when someone is finally trying to do something about it they say it's in good shape. Well, which is it?

That's why the Social Security Trust Fund was set up. Budget surpluses went into it. Of course, since the surpluses no longer exist, and Bush and renigned on his promise not to touch it...

>Besides I don't see anything wrong with giving people the option of investing a portion of their money in something else. And remember no one is forced to take part. They can still let Uncle Sam be their stock broker if they wish.

Neither do I. However, people should understand two things.

First, and especially if one selects to invest in mutual funds or the stock market, there're going to be management fees. If the market doesn't do well, the fees can eat up the money in a hurry.

Second, where's the money going to come from? Social Security isn't in a government account, waiting to be handed out. Rather the money we put in now, goes to those who put money in before us. The net result is that we'll have to borrow, and increase the debt, to fund it. This is to the tune of billions of dollars. So much for halving the national debt.

>>>I really don't care either way on this. Except to say that if/when it is "legal" for homsexuals to be married, it won't open a pandora box for other types of relationships.
>>
>>I don't think that there's any "Pandora's Box" to be worried about
>
>I think I see potential of other type of relationship that might challenge the "institution" of marriage. What about bother and sisters? What about parent and off-spring. Who will stop two adults who happen to be directly related to each other from getting married? For that matter what about pet and owner?

>Silly? I don't know. not too long age we thought same sex marriage was out of the question, but now it's just matter of time... IMO.

The point isn't about morality. That's up to the individual. Rather it's one about civil rights. If one group benefits from a relationship, shouldn't another group? I don't think that it's my business what two other people do.

>>9/11, however, might never have happened if the current adminstration had heeded the warnings of the previous.
>
>I think it's unfair to blame 911 on this curernt administration. Heck, Clinton administrtaion didn;t do much when they had the chance. I guess he was to busy taking care of "business" in the oval office during working hours. That's what happens when you're on the phone with other world leaders while you're getting your pipes cleaned by an intern. ;)

Dean, this brings up a couple of interesting points. I'll take the last one first.

The "getting your pipes cleaned by an intern" business came out of the Whitewater Investigation. Now before Clinton even became President, that incident had been investigated for five years in Arkansas. Now what does the former have to do with the latter? Nothing.

OTOH, George W. sold stock in an oil company he owned shortly before it went bankrupt. This isn't
"insider trading"? Martha Stewart went to jail for less. Where's the outrage? Well, all the documents are sealed and unavailable for public view.

As for Clinton's record on terrorism, he did more to combat it than either George W. or his predessor, George H. W.

Now I've said that Clinton did more to combat terrorism, here're the facts.

After the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Clinton tripled the budget for the FBI's counter-terrorism department, and doubled it overall for other intelligence agencies. The result:

1. An attack to kill the Pope didn't happen.
2. An attempt to blow up 12 US jetliners didn't happen.
3. An attack against UN headquarters didn't happen.
4. An attack against FBI headquarters didn't happen.
5. An attack against the Isaraeli in Washington didn't happen.
6. An attack against LA airport didn't happen.
7. An attack against Boston airport didn't happen.
8. An attack against Lincoln tunnel didn't happen.
9. An attack against Holland tunnel didn't happen.
10. An attack against George Washington bridge didn't happen.
11. An attack against the US embassy in Triana, Albania didn't happen.

When things like this don't happen, they're not "news".

Now prior to the 2000 election, the Clinton adminstration had information about the planned al-Qaida attack on the World Trade Center, and developed a plan to stop it and to "take out" al-Qaida.

Rather than politize the information in the election, the Clinton administration, including Al Gore, chose not to. Rather, they chose to turn the information over to the incoming administration.

After the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, the Clinton administration developed a plan to "take-out" al-Qaida.

Now a series of 10 meetings were help between Sandy Berger (from the outgoing Clinton adminstration) and Condi Rice laying out the details and concerns. Condi has said that they never happened, but her office confirms that they did.

While the Clinton administration had daily briefings on terrorism, the incomong Bush administration didn't, preferring to push that subject to the "back burner".

In August, 2001, intelligence found that there was a plot to fly one or more jetliners into the World Trade Center. In spite of having information that this was a realistic threat, it was ignored. Afterall, George W. was on vacation in Texas.

Now tell me, who was the most pro-active on terrorism?

>>>
>>>What would like to see happen on this area? What have the Bush administration done to harm it?
>>
>>Try the weakening of the "Clean Air and Water Act".
>
>Has that really worsened the environment? How?

Yep! Try this...You take off the top of a mountain to get to the minerals inside it. Where does the top of the mountain go? Prior to this administration, it was illegal to dump it into the surrounding streams and rivers. Now it OK despite whatever pollutants (such as bituminous coal) are in there.

If you want a source for all of this information (and it's all true), just ask.