So many incorrect statements - so little time.


"felton" wrote in message news
Perhaps, but I think most people are profoundly concerned about the
Iraq fiasco.

The majority of Americans don't view Iraq as a fiasco.

Couple that with the deficits, foreign policy disasters,
the job situation and the general distrust of the current
administration and things don't look good for George.

Deficits are of little concern to the average American,
most especially the relatively small deficits the govt. is
running nowadays. Would that the average American
family had so little debt percentage wise.

Polls show the majority of Americans trust the present
administration. Most Americans are solidly behind this
President concerning foreign policy issues.

Although the
Dow has recovered, in large part, I don't think that is the measuring
stick of the economic well being of the average voter. It may reflect
the well being of the average multinational corporation, which seems
to be the constituency of this administration, but not the average
voter. Most people are wage earners, not investors.

Wrong! Well over half of American families have stock market
investments such as 401Ks, individual stocks, bonds, etc.

Trickle down
economics has never worked. It simply widens the divide between the
few at the top and the many at the bottom.

Wrong. The Reagan years proved trickle-down economics worked then
and the recent Bush tax cuts prove they work now.

Bogus gerrymandering and
the right wing propaganda machine won't prop this up forever.

Bogus gerrymandering? Why is it bogus when the Republicans do
it but when the Democrats had the majority and they were doing it
it was right. Ya can't have it both ways.

Things
have to swing back to the middle. I would probably be just as
uncomfortable if things swing too far left, but the ice is pretty thin
where this team has taken us.

Things ARE swinging back to the middle. If you think Bush is
a conservative you're nuts. He's anything but. He has some
conservative views that are good like a strong military and
reluctance to cowtow to such pathetic organizations as the
United Nations. He stands firm against terrorism and he
has good morals personally and respects the office of
President (a welcome change from Clinton). On the other
hand, he certainly is no conservative when it comes to
working for smaller government and smaller government
spending and less government intrusion in our lives. Even
so, he's no worse than the liberal crowd - far better in
fact. What's happening and you and the liberals are too
stupid to see it is Mr. Bush is re-defining the political parties.
He is moving the Republican party away from strict conservativism
and more towards the liberal end of the party spectrum. He
is stealing long-time Democrat 'sacred cow' issues and
bringing into the Republican fold many moderate Democrats
who are fed up with the way left tilt of their own party.

President Bush is slaying the dragon and the dragon is
a Democrat Party out of touch with reality.

I would like to see smaller government, being conservative
myself, but if I can't have it I will settle for a strong
country militarily and a strong economy domestically.
I will enjoy the freedom both give me.

What else really matters to the average American? Like
Clinton so wisely stated. "It's the economy, stupid!"

So, wake up and smell the roses.

S.Simon





On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:53:39 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote:

What don't you get about the famous Clinton statement,
"It's the economy, stupid!". Clinton was often wrong
but he hit the nail right on the head with that assessment.
He was elected because he knew the validity of that
statement. I'm no admirer of the former President but
I give credit where credit is due. As far as Americans
are concerned, it IS the economy, stupid.

Bush has the economy in 2004. Bush wins by a landslide.
Game, set, match! Believe it.

S.Simon


"felton" wrote in message ...
What you are seeing is what happens when one party controls the
"system". When we are blessed with "gridlock", the politicians are
forced to compromise somewhere in the middle, where most Americans are
comfortable. Unfortunately, the political parties are controlled by
the activists, who are generally the extremists. Moderates can't get
the nomination from their parties, so this is what we have. Normally
I would say that Bush would have little chance of being reelected for
any number of reasons, but don't sell the Democrats short. They will
end up nominating someone who is even worse, if that is possible.

I wonder what happened to the term limits that the Republicans
promised us in their "Contract with America"? I'll be voting to limit
the terms of as many as I am able in the next election.

Pray for gridlock.


On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:30:56 +1100, Donny's Dilemma wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:18:36 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote:

What would you prefer to call people who demean
everything their own country does to make sure
freedom doesn't become an antiquated term?

Oh, you mean the thinking people who can see what's happening to your
once proud tradition and values?

The "Hate America First" crowd truly wakes up
in the morning hating their country and goes to
bed at night hating their country and dreams
dreams of hatred toward their country. This
is how they are. They should be spat upon at
every opportunity because they deserve no
better treatment. Let them speak out, let them
make fools of themselves and let them become
objects of scorn. They reap as they sow.

S.Simon

What is it with this "hate" word?
Disagree, dislike but hate?



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.