Fantasea said:The Democrats promised to raise taxes; The Republicans promised to continue reducing taxes.
On this basis alone, the Republicans could have nominated Mickey Mouse and beat Kerry, or any candidate the Democrats could have run against him.
Irrespective of the doom and gloom of media economic reports, the average American is far more prosperous than most people believe and the trend toward greater individual wealth continues.
So long as the Democrats continue to hew to their traditional tax posture, they will continue to lose elections.
Fantasea said:The Democrats promised to raise taxes; The Republicans promised to continue reducing taxes.
On this basis alone, the Republicans could have nominated Mickey Mouse and beat Kerry, or any candidate the Democrats could have run against him.
mixedmedia said:Can someone explain to me, for this question has been bugging me for quite a while. Why is it considered patriotic to surrender your life for your country, yet somehow un-American to surrender your money?
Is money more important than life?
And for the record, Kerry was going to restore tax rates on those making over $200,000 a year. Not quite the same thing as "raising taxes."
Kerry lost because Americans have forgotten what it means to be an American...and because eleven states had gay marriage initiatives on their ballots. That brings the homophobes out of the woodwork...they voted on it in September here in Louisiana and had a record turnout for a non-federal election. Hmmm, and why is it that these ballot initiatives turned up on the Presidential election ballot and not earlier? hmmmm.....weird...do I smell a Rove?
A little earlier, I responded by saying that patriotism and economic conservatism are not mutually exclusive.So answer my question, is it patriotic to surrender your life, but not your money?
I sincerely and deeply regret the anguish of those who have been denied the myriad delights and pleasures which flow sweetly and profusely from a state of connubial bliss. However, this neither justifies the abandonment of a tradition as old as recorded history, nor the ignoring of federal law.You know, like most people, I have witnessed a wide variety of relationships throughout my life. My maternal grandparents were married to each other a total of four times. Yes, they divorced three times. Of all the relationships that have been in or close to my family, only two have been long-lasting and committed. That of my aunt and her female partner, together 25 years, and that my mom's close friends, two men, together for 45 years until one of them died of brain cancer just a couple of years ago. (And, as an aside, he was a well-respected, well-loved high school science teacher - one whose classes parents clamored to get their children into - yeah, times have changed.)
So keep your marriage, okay, because it's a sham. It means nothing. And I want nothing to do with a meaningless formality, now being cloaked in sanctity by the morality brigade that would give the the marriages of Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears and even my own grandparents more legitimacy than those of the most loving and committed relationships that I know of.
Yeah, I'm feeling a little combative this morning. But the world is going to hell in a hand basket and I can't bear to hear all this babble about taxes and oooohhhhh, gay marriage. What a joke.
It was all over the first time Kerry said, 'I'm going to take back the Bush tax break.', and Bush responded by saying, 'Not only am I gonna keep that tax break in place, but yer gonna git another one, too.'heyjoeo said:Well it's a good thing the Republican party used retarded issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion to steer the American public away from the real issues and the source of all the Bush Administration's lies in Foriegn Policy and the Economy.
Yeehaa! But that's the American WAY!!
Jufarius87 said:Many of those who would like to be better off, financially, realize that they never will because they have been 'had' by their party leaders who seduced them into accepting all kinds of rights and entitlements, including sub-standard public school educations that have left them on the outside, looking in at those who are able to succeed in this age of high tech.wouldnt you dems out there like to be rich one day most american aspire to be in a better financial bracket
Envy? Isn't that what results from the constant harping on diversity; the dividing of the populace into politically correct groups that are then pitted against each other? Yet, they have the hypocritical gall to call for unity.
All these unfortunates can do, now, is listen to their 'advocates' chant that wealth should be taxed away from those who do have it and redistributed to those who do not have it.
So, they root for that.
Never gonna happen.
Jufarius87 said:who exactly are u trying to blame?
public schools suck maybe if the liberals stoped wasting money on handouts / welfare/ medicaid/ we could relocate the funds to fix something worthwhile like education
I know you're a stickler for detail, so let me remind you of a few details that, perhaps, have escaped your attention.Hoot said:It was Clinton, in March of 1997, who established the Welfare to Work program.
This ended welfare as we know it, and required welfare recipients to get job training and get off the welfare rolls, instead of making a lifetime of living off the government.
FYI...the welfare rolls have increased under the current President.
Maybe you're voting for the wrong party?
Now if we could do something about ending the corporate welfare under President Bush, we'd really be getting somewhere.
Hoot [QUOTE said:Are you sure that wasn't the "Contract ON America?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?