O. T. Hmmmmmm
 

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help
Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase -
the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue.
As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was
mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton,
voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect
during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse
what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton
administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts!

Oh my gosh, you mean Kerry is just as guilty as Bush in his political ads.

Gould told me that Bush was the only one who did that.


"RGrew176" wrote in message
...
Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to
help
Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium
ncrease -
the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue.
As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was
mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton,
voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into
effect
during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to
reverse
what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton
administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

Which is primarily what the Democrats rely on.

It's bothersome to watch the process. The DNC and the Kerry campaign are
revisiting the successful strategy of the Democrat Party of the 70s. They
are conducting massive voter registration drives among the most
disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments of our society by
spreading lies and promising whatever it takes. It worked then, it may well
work again, and we'll again have the inmates running the asylum, and the
sycophants writing checks on the treasury.

"RGrew176" wrote in message
...
Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to
help
Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium
ncrease -
the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue.
As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was
mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton,
voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into
effect
during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to
reverse
what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton
administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts!


Haven't the Repuglicans controlled the House and Senate for the past two
years with Bush (asleep) at the helm? Why didn't they vote to roll back the
increase? My guess is there aren't enough millionaires on Medicare to do
the lobbying.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Uh...you have no solid ground on which to stand

Ummm... You say I have no solid basis, then regurgitate your standard
insults re GWB. I note that you did not deny or refute my statements.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


It's your boy Bush and the GOP majorities in Congress who are spending
like drunken sailors, and refusing to pay the bills.

A fine Democrat...... avoid the issue and refuse to address the point.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:37:00 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message

That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

Which is primarily what the Democrats rely on.

It's bothersome to watch the process. The DNC and the Kerry campaign
are revisiting the successful strategy of the Democrat Party of the 70s.
They are conducting massive voter registration drives among the most
disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments of our society by
spreading lies and promising whatever it takes. It worked then, it may
well work again, and we'll again have the inmates running the asylum,
and the sycophants writing checks on the treasury.

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right to
vote? The policies of the next administration will effect them, perhaps
more than most. Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive. You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes *should*
count.

"thunder" wrote in message

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right to
vote?

I never said they shouldn't.

Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive.

Doubtful. If they were interested, they would already be participants.
This is just the modern day version of the Dem machines of the 1930s,
wherein ward hacks would ride around on election day and gather up all the
bums they could find, slip each one a finn, drive him to the polls, and tell
him "Vote for Curley".


You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes *should*
count.

I don't dislike it at all, and again, I never said these votes shouldn't
count. I merely point out that the Dems don't give 2 ****es about these
folks until they need 20 or 30,000 votes some year, then they ramrod a huge
voter drive and promptly drop things after the election. Dems want to own
issues, not resolve them.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right
to
vote?

I never said they shouldn't.

Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive.

Doubtful. If they were interested, they would already be participants.
This is just the modern day version of the Dem machines of the 1930s,
wherein ward hacks would ride around on election day and gather up all
the
bums they could find, slip each one a finn, drive him to the polls, and
tell
him "Vote for Curley".


You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes
*should*
count.

I don't dislike it at all, and again, I never said these votes shouldn't
count. I merely point out that the Dems don't give 2 ****es about these
folks until they need 20 or 30,000 votes some year, then they ramrod a
huge
voter drive and promptly drop things after the election. Dems want to
own
issues, not resolve them.

But of course, this country is not a democracy......rather it is a
consitutionally limited republic.

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message ...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right
to
vote?

I never said they shouldn't.

Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive.

Doubtful. If they were interested, they would already be participants.
This is just the modern day version of the Dem machines of the 1930s,
wherein ward hacks would ride around on election day and gather up all
the
bums they could find, slip each one a finn, drive him to the polls, and
tell
him "Vote for Curley".


You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes
*should*
count.

I don't dislike it at all, and again, I never said these votes shouldn't
count. I merely point out that the Dems don't give 2 ****es about these
folks until they need 20 or 30,000 votes some year, then they ramrod a
huge
voter drive and promptly drop things after the election. Dems want to
own
issues, not resolve them.

But of course, this country is not a democracy......rather it is a
consitutionally limited republic.

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.

That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....