OT Bush hatred
 

John H wrote:

No, I was referring specifically to, "...Bush ordered men under his
control into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's
companies could roll up tremendous profits."

Yep, it is pretty terrible for a President to do that. I don't understand why so
many people are willing to make excuses for him.

Oh wait, you mean you don't think it's true?

Let's see... Did G.W. Bush take a lot of advice & instruction from a group of
military-industrialist chickenhawks, appoint a bunch of same to his cabinet, and
didn't many of the people in this group urge war on Iraq clear back in the mid
1990s? Yes.

Does the Bush family hold a very large stake in said military industrial complex?
Yes.

Have the other reasons for going to war in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction,
Iraqi support for Al-Queda, etc etc) proven to have any truth or merit? No.

Did the Bush Administration listen to any advice and/or intel about *not* going
to war in Iraq? Did they seriously consider any option other than war? No.

Is the United States any better off now that we have removed Saddam Hussein?
Arguable point, but the reasons for saying 'yes' (other than blind loyalty to
BushCo) are rather unclear.

Has the military-industrial complex, specifically including Carlyle and
Halliburton, profited from Gulf War 2? Yes indeed, big time.

Conclusion?


If their were an iota of truth in the
accusation, Clark, Dean, Kerry, et al (especially Sharpton) would have
already used it.

In rather non specific terms, it's already being said. As further specific info
comes to light, you'll see it in glorious Technicolor. Remember that a few short
weeks ago, all the Bush cheerleaders were saying "Oh no, Halliburton didn't
overcharge the Army for any fuel, what rubbish, they would never do such a thing"
etc etc.

But there is no fact so glaringly obvious that the head-in-the-sand crowd won't
ignore it. There is no misdeed so foul that the
responsibility-morality-and-accountability crowd won't instantly forgive and
forget... as long as BushCo is the offender.

Iraq is arguably better off without Saddam Hussein and his psychopath sons in
charge, but the US is only facing an increasingly hostile world, very definitely
including the Arab world, and racked up a huge debt.

John H wrote:


Sounds like 'hate talk' to me.

Why, because it makes your fair-haired boy look bad? Observing facts and drawing
logical conclusions is not "hate." I would say that President Bush must really
hate the United States since he is making such a determined effort to ruin it.

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)


John needs a tad of reprogramming.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans.

Only the uniformed ones. How else can you be conservative on the issues,
but support the party that promotes the exact opposite principles?


The Republican Party's principals these days consist mainly of promoting
right-wing Christian religious extremism. The party has no principles.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans. You'd better offer
NOYB a
chair and smelling salts.

NOBBY is either a knee-jerk fascist, or a far left winger pretending to be
one
(is anybody that good an actor?). Not surprising either way, his knowledge
has
some serious gaps.

In the rural South that I grew up in, there were no Republicans. Yet it
was a
very conservative and old fashioned environment. When I got a little
older, and
the South switched almost overnight, it was because of the Republicans
flaunting
an inhuman level of bigotry and racism... a policy that Bush is adept
with...
and which accounts for most of the blue collar Republicans out there IMHO.
The
Democratic Party disavowed attitudes like Lester Maddox's while the
Republicans
embraced them.

So bigotry and racism are the issues that separate the blue collar
Republicans from the blue collar Democrats? You're a piece of work.

If you take away the "race card", Democrats would lose 1/3 of their talking
points. If you take away "class warfare", they'd lose another 1/3. The
remaining 1/3 would be gone if the abortion issue didn't exist.

Don't they have any other issues to run on? I mean, seriously, think about
the issues they run on:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade


Anything I left out? If so, I bet you there's a race/sex/class warfare card
played on it.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your
true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is
showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less
"lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans.

Only the uniformed ones. How else can you be conservative on the
issues,
but support the party that promotes the exact opposite principles?


The Republican Party's principals

Shouldn't that be "principles"? ;-)

these days consist mainly of promoting
right-wing Christian religious extremism. The party has no principles.

Democratic Party principles consist mainly of promoting same-sex marriage,
labor strikes, and the release of convicted child molestors...while they're
trying to take away our guns, and turn us into another socialistic country
in the model of France. The party has principles...but they're some pretty
damn scary ones.

OT Bush hatred
 

Boats dummies, boats!

OT Bush hatred
 

NOBBY wrote:

The non-U.S. economies depend more on us than we do them.

If you're talking about exporting US industries abroad to take advantage of
reduced envronmental controls and cheap labor, then yes.

But to write off the whole issue of the balance of payments and of currency
valuation, you're living in a dream world. Besides, how would Wal-Mart stay in
business if they couldn't bully their foreign suppliers?



... We're making it
clear that to do business with us economically, countries must be on board
with us as we fight the war on terror.

"We" aren't doing anything of the kind. Statements like this are so ridiculous
you'd have to be a leftist whacko trying to discredit Bush to say it.


But hey, Republicans are supposed to be so great at foreign policy, I
guess this
is just a sample...

Republicans have a spine.

You mean Republicans have stock options.... with regard to fortitude,
Republicans as a group seem to average out the same as other people... not
counting all the prominent Republican chickenhawks, that is....

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

Didn't you say you don't have a gun??

NOYB wrote in message
link.net...

snip
...while they're trying to take away our guns, and turn us into another
socialistic country
in the model of France. The party has principles...but they're some
pretty
damn scary ones.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your
true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is
showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less
"lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans.

Only the uniformed ones. How else can you be conservative on the
issues,
but support the party that promotes the exact opposite principles?


The Republican Party's principals

Shouldn't that be "principles"? ;-)

these days consist mainly of promoting
right-wing Christian religious extremism. The party has no principles.

Democratic Party principles consist mainly of promoting same-sex marriage,
labor strikes, and the release of convicted child molestors...while they're
trying to take away our guns, and turn us into another socialistic country
in the model of France. The party has principles...but they're some pretty
damn scary ones.



Nope. The GOP's principals have no principles. The GOP's principals are
out supporting right-wing Christian religious extremism.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Didn't you say you don't have a gun??

Correct. I don't own a gun. I was speaking rhetorically.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOBBY wrote:


Correct. I don't own a gun. I was speaking rhetorically.

You don't have a gun, as in "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this
one's for fighting, and this one's for fun?" Wow. That explains a lot.

Oh wait, you mean that you are opposed to "gun control laws" in the
abstract, even though it doesn't apply to you; the same way you're
against legal abortion, even though you will neither adopt an unwanted
child nor ever be faced with pregnancy issues yourself...

You *must* be a left wing whacko trying to discredit the right, Nobby.
Nobody is that devoted to hypocrisy as a principle...

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOBBY wrote:


Correct. I don't own a gun. I was speaking rhetorically.

You don't have a gun, as in "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this
one's for fighting, and this one's for fun?" Wow. That explains a lot.

Oh wait, you mean that you are opposed to "gun control laws" in the
abstract, even though it doesn't apply to you;

If I wanted to buy a gun, the Constitution affords me that right.

the same way you're
against legal abortion,

The Constitution doesn't grant the right to take another life. I happen to
oppose the death penalty, too. Killing is only acceptable in self-defense.
Of course, you and I will disagree on what's considered self-defense.

even though you will neither adopt an unwanted
child nor ever be faced with pregnancy issues yourself...

You speak so matter-of-factly about issues you know nothing about...


You *must* be a left wing whacko trying to discredit the right, Nobby.
Nobody is that devoted to hypocrisy as a principle...

You keep calling yourself "conservative", but have yet to mention one single
"conservative" issue that you believe in.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOBBY wrote:

The Constitution doesn't grant the right to take another life.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't address that issue drectly. But it certainly
does not grant the right of one group to impose it's religious beliefs, in the
form of law, on the entire country.




You keep calling yourself "conservative", but have yet to mention one single
"conservative" issue that you believe in.

Actually, I posted a list of conservative principles some time ago. Oddly
enough, all the Bush cheerleaders were silent. Shall I post it again?

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOBBY wrote:

The Constitution doesn't grant the right to take another life.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't address that issue drectly. But it
certainly
does not grant the right of one group to impose it's religious beliefs, in
the
form of law, on the entire country.

Abortion has nothing to do with one's religious belief. Abortion and
religion shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence, IMO. It's a
scientific and legal issue. Science and the law get their basis in
"objectivity". Religion gets its basis in "subjectivity". The debate has
now progressed to exactly the point where it should be: at what point is the
fetus considered "alive"? I say it's when the heart starts beating.






You keep calling yourself "conservative", but have yet to mention one
single
"conservative" issue that you believe in.

Actually, I posted a list of conservative principles some time ago. Oddly
enough, all the Bush cheerleaders were silent. Shall I post it again?

Sure. It'll be worth a chuckle.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:


Abortion has nothing to do with one's religious belief. Abortion and
religion shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence, IMO.

Well, there you have it. Your opinion does not have the weight of law,
fortunately.

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

I'm still waiting for a list of your conservative beliefs. Or did you post
it already...and the list was entirely blank?


"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


Abortion has nothing to do with one's religious belief. Abortion and
religion shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence, IMO.

Well, there you have it. Your opinion does not have the weight of law,
fortunately.

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

Democratic Party principles consist mainly of promoting same-sex marriage,
labor strikes, and the release of convicted child molestors...while they're
trying to take away our guns, and turn us into another socialistic country
in the model of France. The party has principles...but they're some pretty
damn scary ones.



Nope. The GOP's principals have no principles. The GOP's principals are
out supporting right-wing Christian religious extremism.


Christianity has morals (when viewed objectively) -- something you
completely lack -- and therefore you view them as extreme. If you had
*any* shred of morality, you'd not see it as extreme.

Republicans (GOP) are very bad examples of morality, perhaps worse than
democrats, for republicans say they have "christian" morality but are
very often hypocrites, one need look no further than the self-appointed
blowhard spokesman Limbaugh.

Democrats make little or no pretension to morality, theirs is a
constantly changing relative morality, suited to the occasion of their
own ever-changing idea of immorality. Yet you, krause, are even "left"
of them morally.

None have the moral "high" road, and especially not you. Stop pretending.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

Don't they have any other issues to run on? I mean, seriously, think
about
the issues they run on:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade


Anything I left out? If so, I bet you there's a race/sex/class warfare
card
played on it.

Some of us also focus on a subject that's alien to you: The environment.
Your president is receiving failing grades in that area, except from a few
industries who've received blowjobs from curious George.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your
true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is
showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?"
I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans.

Only the uniformed ones. How else can you be conservative on the issues,
but support the party that promotes the exact opposite principles?

First of all, DSK was describing a political environment which many people
outside of the South don't understand: The South. That doesn't include most
of Florida. I don't fully understand it, but DSK's brief description sounds
accurate.

Second - Alien concept: Sometimes when choosing who to vote for, you may
have to choose the lesser of two evils. To many conservatives, Bush may have
seemed like the right choice during the last election. That's turning out to
be a problem for them now.

Maybe this will help:
Political party: A club with a mailing list for fund raising.
Conservatism: A way of thinking about certain things.

The key word is "thinking". Notice that the word "reacting" does not appear
here. Real people think. Others become trained over the years to react, like
laboratory rats.

There is a huge movement of conservatives who feel your leader is a dismal
failure, primarily in the areas of fiscal responsibility and the environment
(believe it or not). There are also quite a few who disagree with
imperialism.

You have no idea what a conservative is. It has little to do with abortion,
race issues (at this point in history), or any of the other issues which
candidates normally use to appeal to your baser instincts.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...


Democratic Party principles consist mainly of promoting same-sex marriage,
labor strikes, and the release of convicted child molestors...while
they're
trying to take away our guns, and turn us into another socialistic country
in the model of France. The party has principles...but they're some
pretty
damn scary ones.

Here we go again! Please define socialism, and provide 5 separate examples
of how the Democratic party is trying to do what you claim. This assignment
is due by Friday.

OT Bush hatred
 

Why don't you own a gun?

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Didn't you say you don't have a gun??

Correct. I don't own a gun. I was speaking rhetorically.

OT Bush hatred
 

I'm a Democrat. I believe in gun rights and the death penalty. I also
believe that when a corporation fouls the environment, its principals should
be arrested immediately, same as murders, rapists, etc. WTF am I??? I'm
totally confused!

OT Bush hatred
 

"John H" wrote in message
...

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're
gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)


No, I was referring specifically to, "...Bush ordered men under his
control into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's
companies could roll up tremendous profits."

Well....all his other reasons have pretty much evaporated. He says our main
goal was to eliminate Saddam because he was a bad boy, but we've done
nothing about other bad boys, so that reason is silly. Why not stomp on
Sudan? We know that's a zoo full of terrorists, too. How about Indonesia and
the Phillippines?


Sounds like 'hate talk' to me. If their were an iota of truth in the
accusation, Clark, Dean, Kerry, et al (especially Sharpton) would have
already used it.

They don't need to.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

NOYB wrote:
I'm still waiting for a list of your conservative beliefs. Or did you post
it already...and the list was entirely blank?


Like many facts & events in the real world, it passed you by, didn't it?

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=re...e+princip les

Here is the text

The resident right-wing whackos of this newsgroup
have shown consistent disregard for what is
really "conservative" and what is really
"liberal." It's not likely that most of them will
ever learn anything, much less the following
principles, but at least I have tried.

Conservatives believe:

The gov't should be fiscally restrained.

The country's military should be maintained or
increased in strength to the extent of
being able to defeat any realistic threats.

Criminals guilty of certain heinous acts deserve
the death penalty.

Every right comes at a cost, and every priviledge
carries a corresponding obligation.

Morals are not relative, and principles are not a
matter of inconvenience. In the same light,
hypocrisy regarding morals, ethics, and principle
is one of the most repugnant human failings.

The status quo of social and economic order should
be maintained, or adjusted to
meet certain demands. (Note: the corresponding
liberal belief is that the social and
economic order of society is secondary to the
needs of individuals, and that the
status quo should not be respected.) This is
probably the core divider between real
conservatism and liberalism.

I strongly believe in all these things, and yet am
not a cheerleader for President Bush. Tub thumping
for one's favorite politico is partisanship, not
conservatism.

Regards
Doug King

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
I'm still waiting for a list of your conservative beliefs. Or did you
post
it already...and the list was entirely blank?


Like many facts & events in the real world, it passed you by, didn't it?


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=re...e+princip les

Here is the text

The resident right-wing whackos of this newsgroup
have shown consistent disregard for what is
really "conservative" and what is really
"liberal." It's not likely that most of them will
ever learn anything, much less the following
principles, but at least I have tried.

Conservatives believe:

The gov't should be fiscally restrained.

The country's military should be maintained or
increased in strength to the extent of
being able to defeat any realistic threats.

Criminals guilty of certain heinous acts deserve
the death penalty.

Wow. You're more conservative than me on this one.


Every right comes at a cost, and every priviledge
carries a corresponding obligation.

Morals are not relative, and principles are not a
matter of inconvenience. In the same light,
hypocrisy regarding morals, ethics, and principle
is one of the most repugnant human failings.


It's funny that you specify morals, ethics, and principle as conservative
traits. I agree...and it's the opposite of liberal traits.



The status quo of social and economic order should
be maintained,

Bzzzzzt. Nice try, but no. Under the status quo, Americans currently pay a
progressive tax. Conservatives abhor the idea of a progressive tax...which
is designed to undo the status quo and take more money from the wealthy and
give it to the poor via government entitlements.


or adjusted to
meet certain demands.

I'm ok with that as long as it's equitable and across the board. That's why
we should have a flat tax. Wanna raise my *rate*? Then everybody's *rate*
is increased.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

NOYB wrote:
It's funny that you specify morals, ethics, and principle as conservative
traits. I agree...and it's the opposite of liberal traits.

That you say this only shows that you don't really know what morals &
ethics are. Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'ethos' to get
started.

Anyway, some liberals have principles too. And some people, such as
yourself and our current President & Vice President, give lip service to
the idea of principles but really act out whatever is most expedient &
profitable.

Principles that are abandoned at the first (or even the second) hint of
trouble aren't really principles, are they?

As for adopting an unwanted child, I only know what you yourself have
told me (and the rest of the group)... that you might have considered it
but did not actually do it.

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:1z8Wb.20660

I'm ok with that as long as it's equitable and across the board. That's
why
we should have a flat tax.

I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax. The national consumption
tax would be implemented with similar exemptions and exclusions as are found
in most sales tax structures today. A very simple form could be submitted
annually documenting income status below a certain threshold for rebate
purposes to the very poor. Benefits would be several: minimal
bureaucracy - the electronic mechanism to account and collect such a tax is
already in place in many states, and is easily copied elsewhere;
substantially increased tax base - ALL monies would naturally fall under the
umbrella of such a tax: criminal income, legitimate income, welfare
payments, inheritance income, etc.; it would almost totally eliminate the
opportunity for Congress to screw up peoples' lives with inept attempts at
social engineering, and it would virtually eliminate the IRS - probably the
most unchecked and abusive bureaucracy this government has ever produced.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Gay people have absolutely no effect on you, no matter who they marry.

Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to break.
Go also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your thoughts on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Why don't you own a gun?

I don't hunt, and I live in a gated neighborhood with no crime. I wouldn't
carry the gun for self-defense, since I'm usually in shorts or a t-shirt,
and it would be a nuisance. I'm not fearful of the government, because the
current administration hasn't tried to take away my right to buy a gun.

There are three scenarios in which I could see myself getting a gun:

1) If I started taking long trips by boat in the Caribbean.
2) If some nimrod started harassing my family
3) If the government tried to take away my *right* to own a gun.

In the first situation, I'd go through the natural legal process and buy
one. In the 2nd and 3rd situations, I'd get one through "other" means. I
never said that I *never* owned a gun. I just don't own one right now.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:1z8Wb.20660

I'm ok with that as long as it's equitable and across the board. That's
why
we should have a flat tax.

I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax. The national
consumption
tax would be implemented with similar exemptions and exclusions as are
found
in most sales tax structures today.

Just one problem: Cash sales. I'm talking about under-the-table sales done
by legitimate businesses, as well as transfers of goods outside of that
venue, as between criminal elements. Truckload of DVD players....that sort
of thing.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...


Democratic Party principles consist mainly of promoting same-sex
marriage,
labor strikes, and the release of convicted child molestors...while
they're
trying to take away our guns, and turn us into another socialistic
country
in the model of France. The party has principles...but they're some
pretty
damn scary ones.

Here we go again! Please define socialism, and provide 5 separate examples
of how the Democratic party is trying to do what you claim. This
assignment
is due by Friday.

From websters.com:

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

First of all, a progressive tax system is a mild form of socialism.
Anything that is government-funded fits under the aforementioned definition.
Here are some "specific" examples:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to break.
Go also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your thoughts on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

As far as gay marriage, that has absolutely no effect on you, and the fact
of the matter is that you really don't care about it. Leave it out of future
messages. It's just clutter.

Judges: It's important to have people on the bench who are not only aware of
the separation of church & state, but HONOR the principal.

Abortion on demand: It's nowhere near as big a problem as you imagine it to
be.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to break.
You also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your thoughts
on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

As far as gay marriage, that has absolutely no effect on you, and the fact
of the matter is that you really don't care about it. Leave it out of future
messages. It's just clutter.

Judges: It's important to have people on the bench who are not only aware of
the separation of church & state, but HONOR the principal.

Abortion on demand: It's nowhere near as big a problem as you imagine it to
be.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Gay people have absolutely no effect on you, no matter who they marry.

Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know
these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to
break.
Go also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your thoughts
on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
It's funny that you specify morals, ethics, and principle as
conservative
traits. I agree...and it's the opposite of liberal traits.

That you say this only shows that you don't really know what morals &
ethics are. Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'ethos' to get
started.

Anyway, some liberals have principles too. And some people, such as
yourself and our current President & Vice President, give lip service to
the idea of principles but really act out whatever is most expedient &
profitable.

Principles that are abandoned at the first (or even the second) hint of
trouble aren't really principles, are they?

As for adopting an unwanted child, I only know what you yourself have
told me (and the rest of the group)... that you might have considered it
but did not actually do it.

I have three sons under the age of 5. Why would I adopt at this point in my
life? Perhaps we *will* adopt a girl once the boys have grown a little bit
older, however.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

.....I'm talking about under-the-table sales done
by legitimate businesses,

oxymoronic

as well as transfers of goods outside of that
venue, as between criminal elements.

Criminals will always try to find ways around any legitimate system. But
under a consumption tax structure criminal proceeds would be much harder to
conceal. Even goodfellas buy clothes, toys, furnishings, etc.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:1z8Wb.20660

I'm ok with that as long as it's equitable and across the board. That's
why
we should have a flat tax.

I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax.

Fine. I can go along with that. However, I was promoting a flat tax that
phases out at a certain income level...just to be "fair" to our Democratic
colleages. A consumption tax is even better.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:1z8Wb.20660

I'm ok with that as long as it's equitable and across the board.
That's
why
we should have a flat tax.

I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of
about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax. The national
consumption
tax would be implemented with similar exemptions and exclusions as are
found
in most sales tax structures today.

Just one problem: Cash sales. I'm talking about under-the-table sales done
by legitimate businesses,

I agree...that's a problem.


as well as transfers of goods outside of that
venue, as between criminal elements.

Those aren't taxed under today's system, either.

OT Bush... taxes
 

"John Gaquin" wrote...
I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax.


That doesn't seem like it's going to bring in anywhere near the same
revenue. Unless you are also going to chop off at least half of the
current gov't expenditures, this is just a pie-in-the-sky dream.

One problem I have with having the Feds put on a consumption tax or an
ad-valorum tax or whatever is that it is a serious brake on the economy.
The web of VAT is choking the European economies, we should observe and
learn and do better.



NOYB wrote:
.... I was promoting a flat tax that
phases out at a certain income level.

Ahem... that is a progressive tax, you darn socialist.

Nobby, can you post *anything* you believe in that doesn't reek of
hypocrisy?

DSK