On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:20:32 -0800, Ed Price wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:13:12 -0700, Ed Price wrote:

...snip

I suppose we should
just trust him. Last time I trusted Democrats, I got the Bay of Pigs and
Viet Nam.

Ed
wb6wsn

Hi Ed,

I'm not a Democrat, but it seems like the last one we elected gave us 8
years of economic prosperity and eliminated deficit spending. I don't
think one can use such a broad brush. No flame.
--

Larry
email is rapp at lmr dot com
10/31/04 10:12:49 AM

No flame taken. Just a little reminder to those whose memories are about as
long as a fruit fly.

I'm not too fond of either candidate, and even less fond of the two major
parties. But I think Bush's judgmental mistakes pale in comparison to
Kerry's prevarications; the last Kerry quote I heard was a promise to hunt
down and punish terrorists. Who's gonna do that, how they gonna get there,
and what effect would they have, if we had followed Kerry's Senatorial
voting record opposing almost all military systems?

Finally, a President doesn't "give" us an economy, at least not for a few
years. Our system is so ponderous that it's not very responsive to
legislative tinkering. I used to think that was a fault, but considering the
agendas of each administration, I now think it's a blessing.

Ed
wb6wsn

We certainly agree on both candidates. Personally, I'm quite disappointed
that McCain didn't make it.

Regarding Kerry's Senate voting record - I hate to be seen as supporting
the guy, but it certainly appears that he felt that supporting those major
weapons systems would do little against the enemy we now face. Frankly,
the only logical way to get those guys is with "boots on the ground" and a
greatly improved intelligence community.

I realize that the economy was not a direct result of 8 years of Clinton -
in fact, it probably had more to do with Greenspan than Clinton, but it did
occur under Clinton's watch. And certainly one can't argue that he
eliminated deficit spending, although he certainly wasn't the sole cause.

Perhaps the best solution is when one party controls the Congress and the
other controls the Presidency. This has been a pet theory of mine for
years. In such a situation, there is more than the usual amount of
conflict and little gets done. By and large, that seems to be a good
thing! There is less special interest legislation and what gets passed is
scrutinized more carefully.

It's hard to characterize the Democrats as "tax and spend" and the
Republicans as "fiscally conservative" when you look at the last four
years.
--

Larry W1HJF
email is rapp at lmr dot com
11/01/04 9:57:07 AM