From: abirnba4@yahoo.com   
      
   Greg Heilers wrote:   
      
   > Elmer Pintar wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>I'm starting to think that he may in fact be a good choice for   
   >>president; someone who we at least know wouldn't take us far into   
   >>unpopular wars.   
   >   
   >   
   > By that reasoning....Lincoln was a *bad* President.   
   >   
   Lincoln was very unpopular, even in the north, when he was elected. And   
   like Kerry, Lincoln was a nuanced thinker. It's part of what made him so   
   great.   
      
      
   >>I think he would be good for the poor better than Bush would.   
   >   
   >   
   > Why?  For his continuance of the "Institution of Modern Slavery"   
   > (a.k.a. the welfare system)?  For his draconian tax-increases on   
   > those earning over $200,000/year?   
      
   You believe those ads? He's going to increase taxes back to where they   
   were during the Clinton administration. I hardly think that's draconian.   
   Taxes on the rich are lower than ever, the nation is in debt, and there   
   are more and more people in line at my local soup kitchen as the wealthy   
   are given more money for SUVs and second homes.   
      
   Why punish those who energize   
   > our growing, strengthening economy.   
      
   Punish? Many of them made their money mainly from investments, not hard   
   work. And how on earth do the rich energize the economy? They get money,   
   and they may invest it, but they don't spend it right away. Trickle-down   
   economics don't work. It's the middle class and poor who will spend the   
   money involved in a tax cut, because they need to. Remember-- when   
   Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy improved. Bush's tax cuts   
   haven't improved things much.   
      
   >   
   >>For homeland security, I don't see why Kerry would be weak in this area at   
   >>all.   
   >   
   >   
   > Well, seeing as he has voted *against* just about every spending bill   
   > in this arena, over his un-impressive Senate record....   
   >   
   Voting records are impossible to boil down to a few sound bites. Senate   
   bills are filled with details that any given lawmaker has to weigh-- the   
   good and the bad. Taken out of context, any senator's 20-year voting   
   record looks iffy. Take Cheney's voting record as a Congressman. It's   
   pretty shameful.   
      
   >   
   >>The voters support any funding or sacrifice necessary here at   
   >>home.   
   >   
   >   
   > Yes the *voters* do...which is precisely why Mr. Kerry should *not*   
   > be elected.  He is 100% out-of-step with the populace on this issue.   
   >   
   Who says? Do you live in a conservative state?   
      
   >   
   >>I also think that Kerry would get along well with foreign leaders   
   >>and that he would strengthen the ties with nations such as France,   
   >>Spain, and Turkey.   
   >   
   >   
   > What reasoning do you for this hypothesis?  He has already slammed   
   > just about every nation in the world, by calling them "coerced and bribed",   
   > and ignored their sacrifices in the current war.   
      
   President Bush? Is that you? I hardly think one remark (again, taken out   
   of context) is akin to Bush's actions, which have isolated us from the   
   rest of the world.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>We DO need more bonding with other foreign countries   
   >>besides England.   
   >   
   >   
   > Yes...and Mr. Kerry is the wrong choice for doing so.   
      
   And Bush is the right one?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)