From: derekbill@allsummerlong.com
In article , Greg
Heilers wrote:
> subw75 wrote:
>
> > 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 agree with that statement regarding Lincoln. I do *not* think that way
> regarding Mr. Kerry. I think you confuse "nuanced" with "condescending"
> and obscenely Eurocentric. And the point of the original poster...was that
> a President who involved us in an "unpopular" war was a bad choice.
> Therefore, Lincoln was a bad President in his point-of-view. (Do not
> forget the 1863 NYC draft riots...the *worst* example of civil mayhem,
> including deaths, this country has ever experienced.)
>
> >
> >>>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.
>
> Taxes should be lower for *everyone*. If only we had a flat tax, or we
> could implement the Fair Tax Doctrine. If your local soup kitchen is doing
> a booming business, then the problem lies at the level of your local
> government...not the Executive branch of the Federal Government. If every
> "rich" person would purchase a new SUV, and second home...imagine the boom
> to the US auto industry, and housing industry. Have you, personally, ever
> been given a job by a "poor" person? But once again...these are not issues
> that the Executive branch should be involved in. And the Federal
> Legislative branch should only have *minimal* involvement.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Once again, I have never experienced a "poor" person giving me a job, or
> starting a business in my area. Read up on the devastation caused by
> Mr. Clinton's draconian increases of the "luxury" taxes.
>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
>
> Yes...he *did* cancel the A-12 Avenger program, but that was as Secretary of
> Defense.
>
> >>
> >>>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 am assuming then, that you would consider Texas a conservative state?
> To me...it is middle of the road, mainstream, and in some areas even a
> little left-leaning.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
>
> One remark? One of many.... Remember, he implied that Mr. Allawi was
> nothing but a "puppet" of the Bush Administration. Funny...since when Mr.
> Allawi was named interim President of Iraq, Mr. Kerry was saying it was
> another "failure"...since he was not one of "our" guys....
> And let us not forget that Mr. Kerry voted against liberating Kuwait,
> and was a supporter of Daniel Ortega's tyranny. Put that with his
> brown-nosing of the North-Vietnamese....he seems to often be on the
> "wrong side".
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>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?
>
> YES!!!
Here's the deal: Bush is an idiot. Back in 2000 the GOP should have
nominated McCain, but Rove & Company spread the most vicious,
ridiculous rumors about him and the South Carolinians were dumb enough
to buy it. Probably the offspring of the assholes who kept us from
having a country until the North agreed not to prohibit slavery.
As for Lincoln, no offense to the millions who died for the Union, but
today it appears more and more that letting the South secede might not
have been such a bad idea. (Of course, thanks to The Great Uniter,
we're now living a cold civil war, but that's a discussion for another
day). The tradition/property-centric rednecks skew the electoral vote
so that a wildly unpopular fake hillbilly can be elected President,
while a profoundly more qualified Yankee has to explain why fighting in
and then becoming enlightened about a pointless war is a bad thing.
And of course those who forget, ignore, or deny the past are doomed to
repeat it, so here we are in Iraquagmire waiting for the inevitable
realization that, regrettably, Saddam was right when he said we'd need
six Presidents to govern the country in the event of his removal.
Here at home, without national standards for voting and counting, the
results will be suspect if they are close, and the popular vote and the
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
