erik Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 actually ehemic you posted a good reason why dean should not be president....a web blog....pfft... Quote
Bronco Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 ehmmic said: Bush and his cronies must go! here's my valuable and sensitive contribution -> What the hell is a blog anyway? Quote
minx Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Dean's position on privacy rights, particular those related "homeland security" disturb me. Not sure he is better than Bush and Co. Quote
scrambler Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Bronco said: here's my valuable and sensitive contribution -> What the hell is a blog anyway? Blog--short for weblog. Usually refers to a website with information that is added to daily or on another frequent basis; typically has hyperlinks to other sites. Sort of a personal clearinghouse of information. ehmmic said: Bush and his cronies must go! Puppets on the left, puppets on the right... Quote
slothrop Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 erik said: actually ehemic you posted a good reason why dean should not be president....a web blog....pfft... Huh? Does having a blog reveal something insidious an unpresidential about Howard Dean that I'm not aware of? That's a great speech, by the way. Quote
iain Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 scrambler said:Sort of a personal clearinghouse of information. Read: egocentric e-carnival of narcissism. Quote
jon Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Most people are good at pointing out problems while most aren't good at fixing them. Quote
JayB Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Dean is a Karl Rove fantasy come to life, perphaps even more so than Ralph Nadir... Quote
chelle Posted September 24, 2003 Author Posted September 24, 2003 minx said: Dean's position on privacy rights, particular those related "homeland security" disturb me. Not sure he is better than Bush and Co. Not Sure I understand what you're referencing. His views sound pretty reasonable to me. Quote
iain Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 isn't he a has-been with gen. clark running now? Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 ehmmic said: minx said: Dean's position on privacy rights, particular those related "homeland security" disturb me. Not sure he is better than Bush and Co. Not Sure I understand what you're referencing. His views sound pretty reasonable to me. Uh, two things disturb me about the speech he gave: One, he says "deplete our national treasury by giving tax cuts". National Treasury? What the fuck, last I knew it was MY hard earned money not the governments. He has a big-government mentality that it is the government's money first. Second, he doesn't know what kind of government was set up by the Founding Fathers when he says "our democracy". This country was founded as a democratic republic - very different. Quote
chelle Posted September 24, 2003 Author Posted September 24, 2003 iain said: isn't he a has-been with gen. clark running now? Last I checked the election is next fall and the Democratic party candidate will not be determined until early summer. How can it be over for any one of the candidates. A lot can happen between now and then, and now is the time for voters to do their homework and decide who best represents their personal views. Personally I haven't made a decision. I liked what Dean said in his speech yesterday and thought I'd post it. Not everyone on this board is a conservative who supports the Right Wing POV. Greg - our tax dollars are put into the federal treasury to fund government spending. If you look into Dean's history as Governor of Vermont I think you will find he is fiscally conservative for a Democrat. He is in support of government spending. Money has to be spent to keep the machine running, however the things he proposes spending money on will have far more benefit to me and what I value than how Bush spends my tax contributions. And semantically you are correct about the country's forefathers and the type of government they founded. We are a republic which is why we have representatives in Washington DC who make decisions on our behalf...and why the general popular vote was ignored in the last presidential election! Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 ehmmic said: And semantically you are correct about the country's forefathers and the type of government they founded. We are a republic which is why we have representatives in Washington DC who make decisions on our behalf...and why the general popular vote was ignored in the last presidential election! Don't qualify my correctness, ehmmic, that IS what they set up. You were almost there, until you tripped over that Democrat red herring of "ignoring the popular vote" thing. Shall I explain the "semantics" of that to you now? Quote
rbw1966 Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 How about explaining the semantics behind Dean being big government as compared to the current administration? Republicans in favor of smaller government, fiscal conservatism and states rights? States rights? Popular state vote enacts death with dignity law in Oregon and Ashcroft intervenes to stop it. Fiscal conservatism? War in Iraq. Smaller government? Office of Homeland Security, new cabinet position etc. Cognitive dissonance. Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 rbw1966 said: How about explaining the semantics behind Dean being big government as compared to the current administration? Republicans in favor of smaller government, fiscal conservatism and states rights? States rights? Popular state vote enacts death with dignity law in Oregon and Ashcroft intervenes to stop it. Fiscal conservatism? War in Iraq. Smaller government? Office of Homeland Security, new cabinet position etc. Cognitive dissonance. Hey, man, I never said I was the posterchild of support for the current administration OR political party. I'm just commenting on Dean because that was the original topic. Don't corner me into defending Bush's decisions. At the heart of it, neither party will be for smaller government as long as they are allowed to get re-elected for an unlimited number of terms (in Congress). Those in power will always seek greater powers. Seek term limits for your Senators and Representatives. Quote
chelle Posted September 24, 2003 Author Posted September 24, 2003 Greg_W said: At the heart of it, neither party will be for smaller government as long as they are allowed to get re-elected for an unlimited number of terms (in Congress). Those in power will always seek greater powers. Seek term limits for your Senators and Representatives. Now that's something you and I both support! Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 ehmmic said: Greg_W said: At the heart of it, neither party will be for smaller government as long as they are allowed to get re-elected for an unlimited number of terms (in Congress). Those in power will always seek greater powers. Seek term limits for your Senators and Representatives. Now that's something you and I both support! That's the way it was meant to be. Early congressmen had fields and flocks to tend to, they couldn't spend all their time squabbling over this shit...then Ted Kennedy was born...oh, the horror. Quote
catbirdseat Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 It seems to me that both parties are for more government. The only difference is that one would like more guns, the other more butter. One would prefer to borrow money for guns, the other would prefer to pay for it as we go along by not cutting taxes. Quote
iain Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Greg_W said:Don't qualify my correctness, ... Shall I explain the "semantics" of that to you now? If you could just explain the semantics of this instead... Greg_W said: I don't want my lack of response to be taken as lack of ability to back up what I say, but I don't have my information at hand. from this thread: Liberal Bias in the News, Part IV Quote
Greg_W Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 catbirdseat said: It seems to me that both parties are for more government. The only difference is that one would like more guns, the other more butter. One would prefer to borrow money for guns, the other would prefer to pay for it as we go along by not cutting taxes. You might be on the right track, but you're totally missing what these parties want. Both parties want power. At the heart, one party believes that PEOPLE are the answer, and the other believes that GOVERNMENT is the answer. Now, bear in mind that I said "at the heart"; it doesn't always end up that clear cut. Don't be fooled, the Democrats aren't so responsible as to want to "...pay for it as we go along by not cutting taxes." They want more money for more programs; also, more money means more BORROWING POWER. Why do you think they won't let us control our Social Security dollars? They use that money as collateral to borrow other money; if we controlled it in private investment vehicles, they couldn't do that. It's all a shell game...on both sides. Cutting useless waste and bad programs is the only way. Quote
To_The_Top Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 rbw1966 said: How about explaining the semantics behind Dean being big government as compared to the current administration? Republicans in favor of smaller government, fiscal conservatism and states rights? Fiscal conservatism? War in Iraq. And that child care CREDIT-a direct reduction of tax dollars not wages. Quote
Jim Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 There's some lameo ideas being put into place regarding tax structure these days. One camp suggests that by cutting taxes we will spur the economy, while it is true to a limited extent it's usually a combination of other factors of the business cycle that pull things out of a recession. But it makes good political fodder. The other camp, which seems to be in charge is the "starve the beast" mentality. If you cut taxes to the upper incomes (the ones that funded you) enough it will force cuts in discrenary spending (except the military of course). The idea is to dig a deep enough hole (debt) that we can't climb out of unless we cut the two big budget items - Social Security and Medicare. With this goal in mind the Bushies have reveresed a several billion surplus to a several trillion defecit. And the folks taking the tax cuts don't really care about Social Security or Medicare, and the real pain will be deferred for a few years anyway so the fallout, for now, is minimum. Especially if you keep on message about the evil doers. My kid and yours will be paying this debt for a long time. And if you were counting on popular social programs such as Social Sercurity and Medicare, don't hold your breath. But boy, can we build a cruise missle or what? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.