Go to Veterans Watching Our Government
- Add a comment
- Go to Bush Clears the Decks, again . . .
We are closer, sarwood!
Actually both parties want to parent us, but the Democrats are willing to go further into it than the Republicans. The feds have no business getting involved with welfare, education, or energy control, for instance, yet, they are there, messing things up that could be better handled at the State or Local levels.
posted by
archiew
on October 10, 2004 at 8:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Ahhh you are a Libertarian
well, that explains a lot, and at least is philosophically consistent.
As for the Democratic party wanting to be a parent, well that is propaganda from the Republicans, but sometimes I agree they have taken things "too far." For instance, I am not concerned about obesity, alcoholoism, drug rehab or helmuts/seatbelts...(and am very lukewarm on the AIDS subject) at least not by the government.
However, I am concerned that industry have to worry about producing products that are free from Mad Cow disease, Ecoli, and defective, explosive devices. There truly IS a "public interest," in education, safety, health and the environment -- just as there is a need for national defense. Some things the individual cannot do.
It is up to us to keep negotiating the realities here, not label each other and dismiss all rational discussion.
posted by
sarwood
on October 10, 2004 at 6:54 AM
| link to this | reply
BTW, Sarwood . . .
I have my own cigars and will stick to them!
posted by
archiew
on October 9, 2004 at 7:35 AM
| link to this | reply
sarwood, again . . .
The entire goal of the Democratic party as it stands now is to make the federal government into a giant parent. I don't want nor do I need for the government to be my parent. I want to have them do exactly as their duties are in the Constitution and get away from everything else.
Bush is not my forst choice, and he will not get mey vote. That vote of mine will go to Michael Badnarik, the libertarian candidate for president. But on that hierarchy, Bush is number two and Kerry is a distant, far, far distant third.
Kerry's entire life has been a lie, from his schooling to his military service to his "service" in the Senate. Even now he is stealing from us by not serving as a Senator but trolling the nation for votes. He is stealing whatever money he is being paid and betraying those who voted for him. Same thing goes for Edwards, BTW, re: his stealing and not representig his constituents.
posted by
archiew
on October 9, 2004 at 7:34 AM
| link to this | reply
And what if . . . .
Bush owns a lumber company? So what? I doubt he is in the day to day management of it. Is it now illegal for a politician to own a business? What of Kerry's massive holdings between himself and his wife? Why does that not bother you.
Taxes are an unnecessary burden, and Mr. Bush is lowering them, and will hopefully lower them even more.
Kerry speakes of the rich as if they are evil and the root of all our domestic problems. How nice. does he exclude himself and his family? What is evil about owning property and having money? should having money mean that one is to be treated unfairly, pay more tasxes, etc.? Not in my book of fair play it doesn't.
Try researching your info, sarwood.
posted by
archiew
on October 9, 2004 at 7:28 AM
| link to this | reply
sarwood . . .
Stop spreading fables. Shineski (sp?) was due for retirement and the date was set for his retirement prior to the events you portrayed.
Kerry would not know truth if he saw it.
posted by
archiew
on October 9, 2004 at 7:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Nice try, but no cigar!
Kerry won the debate on truth, and if this election isn't about truth it isn't about anything. Bush, as usual, had to resort to distortions to try and make his "points." As for the 'popularity contest' nonsense. Leadership is not a popularity contest and you know that. Leadership means giving rational, honest reasons for actions that you expect people to support so that they wholeheartedly support your actions and don't secretly try to undermine you at every opportunity. Do we want a democracy or a dictatorship? The choice is that stark. Democracy requires leadership - not bull-headed barking of "I said it, dammit, and that's all you need to know."
For the Record:
"Bush said he spoke to generals in the White House and asked if they had enough troops, and 'they looked me in the eye and said 'Yes Sir'" but Gen. Shinseki told the president there were not. (and we know what happened to him)... Other senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Rumsfeld that they were concerned about troop levels...."
"Bush said Kerry's tax-cut rollbck would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or law firm would represent a small business. And in fact, Bush does own under his definition, a portion of a timber company. See www.factcheck.org."
"On health care, Bush continued th specious accusation that Kerry is proposing a 'government takeover' of the U.S. health system, but Kerry's plan builds on both private sector and government programs."
"Regarding drug re-importation from Canada, the president tried to suggest he is on the verge of supporting it, but despite overwhelming support in the House of Repr and the Senate, the White House has blocked legislation opening the borders to the reimportation of U.S.-made pharmaceuticals." (These are drugs produced by U.S. companies, but subject to Canadian pricing.... the only reason to block their return to the U.S. is to serve the profits of the pharmaceutical companies who have a HUGE lobby in Congress.)
- Washington Post, 10/9/04
On the subject of medical malpractice.... Nevada has a history of capping legal claims. What happened to the insurance premiums? Exactly nothing. They stayed just as high as before. However Edwards outlined a very effective proposal to curb "frivolous" lawsuits - by having an independent board hold trial lawyers accountable and denying their licenses to practices on a "three strikes and you're out" basis. In the meantime, if your child gets the wrong heart or has the wrong leg amputated, I think you would like to know that the person being so negligent could be called to account.... When caps are put on legal damages, you both undermine the jury system and say to professionals and corporations "you can now budget for the neglect you plan to practice in order to save your own expenses money - and pass on this cost of neglect to the final user. No element of uncertainty remains to keep you on your toes." This cap would end any bottom line motivation to take care to check for Mad Cow disease or to institute a true quality-control system in an organization that might actually cost a dime.
posted by
sarwood
on October 9, 2004 at 7:01 AM
| link to this | reply