Kerry/McCain in '04?

Wolfman, perhaps it is you that needs to research who has held the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives the last three years, as well as all but one year of the Senate. Daniel's point was clearly aimed at the long-term effects of the irresponsible tax cuts. Throw in a reckless expensive war, and by golly, we certainly will have our grandkids looking back at our "Hey Days"!

:cussing:

 

Reread my post. The current deficit is NOT the sole responsibility of the Republicans. When you have tax cuts, you are supposed to follow them with SPENDING cuts.

There is no such thing as irresponsible tax cuts. It is NOT the purpose of the government to redistribute wealth, or coddle those who are "less fortunate." This country was originally founded on the basis of having the freedom to work to achieve whatever dreams you had for yourself in life. You either suceeded or failed based on your abilities. The governments function was supposed to be there to protect that freedom.

As for the war, the removal of a murderous tyrant openly murdering his citizens is far from reckless. The ripple effect of this engagement is already starting to have effects. Iran is snapping back into line, as is Libya. Both are terrorist friendly states, whose recent actions will make the welcome mat for those cowards just that much smaller.
As for the WMD, nobody in the UN disagreed that Saddam had them. His use of them on his own people is well documented. It was up to him to prove that he disarmed. Instead, he played shell games with them. In the end, he could not prove that they were disposed of, and UN resolutions clearly stated that he had to show this proof or face the consequences. Well, he faced the consequences. As to what really happened to them, I doubt anybody will ever know. He had more than enough time to hide and ship them out of the country thanx to the conniving of three countries that have since been exposed to have been violating the sanctions set against Iraq at the time.

 

Good points! But when one gangster turns against a former ally -- perhaps, as in this case, a more brutal gangster -- to further his self-interest, is that gangster suddenly righteous because of the evil of his victim?
As for knock-on effects, Libya's change was for economic reasons, and we may already have turned Iran from moderation to extemism.
And if you justify actions on the basis of UN decisions, how can you possibly condone action taken in contempt of the UN?
Is this a cake and eat it thing?
Let there be Prius and Peace!

 

Taxes = EVIL, government = EVIL, freedom = GOOD!

Thanks Wolfman, now I get it!

 

Not quite. Reasonable taxes to cover reasonable expenses is fine. Gas taxes are one example. The entry fees for our national parks is another. Some taxes would have to be collected to have a proper millitary for protecting our borders. BLOATED government is evil. A limited government to manage that millitary, manage the maintanance of those road networks, as well as provide BASIC direction for a law abiding, functional society is fine. Our government has lost that focus, consequently turning into an overtaxed nanny state.

 

The UN failed to uphold it's own resolutions. It is my belief that the bickering within the UN, has alot to do with the reason why we never found WMD. He had WAY too much lead time to get rid of it when he knew we were gonna come knocking at his door. It is due to the UN's weak kneed reaction when being called to enforce it's own resolutions, that I veiw them critically in the end. Personally, I feel that we would have been MUCH better off to have had their full cooperation and endorsement before going in. In the end though, the UN proved it lacked the leadership to do the right thing, despite it not being the most popular action.

As for the motives of the Bush administration do to the war, I cannot say that I wholly support the exact motives. However, the end result is and will be a people that are no longer being exterminated for the entertainment value of a psychopath.

As for Iran being extremist? They opened their doors to allow UN officials to verify that their nuclear operations were not for clandestine millitary applications. Prior to the Iraq war, they were being quite resistant to any outside observation of their nuclear operation. I don't know whatever came of this, as it seemed to die off of the news shorty after.

 

Now there is something we can agree on. However, my problem is not with the so called government bloat (Re: too many services). Rather, it is with the politicians that build waste into programs to benefit their friends and supporters directly at the expense of taxpayers. Decades ago it was the Democrats that more deserved the criticism for this waste, but now, it is clearly the modern rendition of the Republican Party that is setting a new standard of unnecessary waste.

To cut this short, I'll give one example of a parallel trend. A long time back, organized crime was commonly associated with elements of the Democratic Party (e.g., unions, inner city politics). Sure, some of this exists today, but guess which party organized crime feels most comfortable with these days? Doesn't mean to suggest a co-existance, but rather, a shared philosophy that government represents an unlimited source of funding (Re: Cash Cow) without putting anything back.

Someday, I'll look forward to the return of the Republican Wing of the Republican Party.

(You may now light your flamethrowers.)

 

First of all, no, I don't know Hillary (reference to an earlier post). As I've said, I just "have a gut feeling", based on interviews she has done in recent past.

Second, I like Hillary, and would vote for her in a heartbeat if she was running for president this year. So, I'm not exactly sure where you're going with the "witch" reference. Except that you are the one throwing out the "school yard nonsense" - your words.

Thirdly, in response to your "discuss politics" comment, this is a public forum, we can discuss whatever the heck we want.

So, lighten up, dude. 8)

 

satchm0,

My apology for reading your words different than intended. By saying Hillary wanted, and Hillary will work against Kerry (a member of her own party!), you did come across like a Clinton conspiracy theorist. Look, over there, Vince Foster's body!

As for Hillary becoming VP or P, I don't support that now or possibly even in the future. While she is immensely capable for the position, the baggage she carries (no, not her own evil doing) is too great to sit well with the American people. Let her be Senator, UN Ambassador, even Secretary of State. But, until she distance herself completely from what she and her husband went through in the 90's, nothing higher.

You are right, this is a "public forum" and people can discuss whatever they like (within reason). However, you picked a bad year to try to quiet this guy down. There is far too much at stake regarding my family's future (we retire in 15 years), and in particular, that of my 7 and 10 year old sons.

Again, sorry for misreading your thoughts.

Paul

 

No probs, Paul! I know the topic of politics hits very close to home for a lot of us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(satchm0 @ Mar 12 2004, 02:02 PM) [snapback]6840[/snapback]</div>

Not so far off as you would think, it seems...

 

By the time Obama gets back from Europe, he'll be so low in the polls he might be forced to put Hillary on the ticket. She runs stronger in a lot of big must-win states than he does. He is still vulnerable to the white lower middle class vote--which is how Bush won his elections.

Picking one of those white male Senators as a running mate will be a mistake. Won't help him a bit. He needs the Clinton connect to the working class on the ticket.

Obama is running a lousy campaign so far--in my view. He needs to get the media off Iraq and onto the economy if he wants to win. Trips to Europe and the Middle East aren't going to do that. People are more concerned about what's going on here.

It's the economy, stupid. Forget about Iraq. Haven't you heard? The surge is working. Don't p--- against the wind.