The fact is, there are certain things that only governments can do well. Like build highways and other infrastructure, defend the nation from attack, and funding basic scientific research that is decades away from being converted into commercially useful products.
Right now, BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans are more concerned with feathering their supporters with government largesse. The only difference between them is that the Dems are at least honest about their need to raise taxes to fund the programs that they support, while the Republicans believe that deficit spending can help the economy grow into paying for those programs. Which has never come close to being proven at the deficit levels which we are currently seeing, and certainly will not happen at the measely job growth levels (and declining average wage levels) currently being experienced.
Since both parties are equally fiscally irresponsible at present, the best we can do is vote for the man with the best intellect and character, and hope he has the courage to do the right thing. I'd submit that we have, in starting a foolhardy war in Iraq without any plan to win the peace, and in his record of running companies into bankruptcy, and his personal cowardice regarding combat, in his gentleman's Cs in school, and in his personal irresponsibility concerning drug and alcohol abuse, including DUI, an existence proof that George W. Bush is NOT that man.
Kerry, on the other hand, has demonstrated far more personal courage, personal intelligence, and willingness to listen, and modify his views when events make it necessary, than has Bush. I'd submit that your average random mid-level executive could do a better job than Bush has demonstrated in his past 4 years, and Kerry is far better than that.
After listening to the Clintons last night one cannot help but fell sorry for all the Marxist appeasers in the Democratic party. They now have no party to vote for.
Bill and Hilary almost talked a game to the right of Ronald Reagan last night. One wonders how many votes this party would truly get if they just came out and told the truth about themselves.
We will:
*tax you into oblivion
*kiss the ass of the UN, Europe, and anyone else who hates America
*defund the military and intelligence
*discourage personal responsibility and a strong work ethic
*make every lifestyle acceptable except for average 2-parent (father and mother), middle class, religious ones that made this country great
Everything is relative, of course. But they're not running against Eisenhower or Reagan, they are running against George W. Bush. The same Bush who has taken the largest government surplus in history and turned it into the largest government deficit in history, through profligate spending and irresponsible tax cuts for people who earn 6-figure incomes.
The same Bush who ignored his own military commanders and started an unneccessary war in Iraq with no plan and insufficient resources to win the peace, and who has had to resort to so seriously taxing our military reserves that we cannot meet our recruiting goals anymore. And who, at the same time, has gutted Veterans benefits.
And the Clintons never said anything about lowering taxes. Their speeches dealt with EQUITABLE division of the tax burden.
Now that you have outlined the Republican party's plan, I'm glad you figured out how far the dems have come.
BTW-The UN, Europe and "anyone else" don't hate America. But they can tell a govt run amok when they see it and hate that. I think everyone but redneck yahoos would prefer a US that tried to be friendly first before rattling the sabre.
We have earned this derision. That it weakens us immeasurably is the real threat.
Every lifestyle in America and the fact that they are all cool IS what made this country great. Small minded bigotry like that which I think you advocate is what holds us BACK!
Aside from the clear lack of thought and vision- great post. Keep 'em coming.
It's a damn shame that Bush & Co. fucked up the U.N.'s cash flow from the "Oil for Food" program. Then he went and pissed on France and Russia's sweetheart deals on oil contracts and arms sales. All over some lame-assed idea that the U.N. should enforce it's resolutions and hold a psychotic nut-case dictator accountable.
Sometimes it's necessary to grab the ostrich by the neck and yank it's head out of the sand. But then, maybe we should have let the U.N. and France handle the situation the same way they've been helping non-Muslim blacks in the Darfur region of Sudan.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/27/2004 12:25:02 PM
The French are in on this situation? Are they supporting the Janjaweeds from Chad?
Actually, some french help would be great. They maintain a regiment of RLE in Chad, and could put boots on the ground easily. Well simply as nothing in this region is easy.
I wonder where the political will will come from?
The French issued a "stern warning" to Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed, but they're opposing UN sanctions, along with China. Couldn't have anything to with 120,000 square kilometers worth of oil concessions owned by TotalFinaElf, could it? Nah.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/27/2004 1:07:52 PM
If the French are opposing UN sanctions due to their oil interests then you should be proud of the French, shouldn't you?? For the first time they are following in the footsteps of Cheney so this should make you proud of the French!!
Wait just a damn minute here!! Are you accusing a govt of determining foreign policy based on oil interests?? Do I smell a conspiracy theory?? No of course not because no govt in the world would ever charter foreign policy based on oil interests. So why would you accuse the French of doing so?? And then when someone accuses W/Cheney of doing the same thing you scream bloody conspiracy theory. If you are smart enough to make the connection between French opposition and oil then why is it that you have such a hard time making the connection between oil and foreign policy at home??
Ever have oil flavored cool-aid courtesy of the RNC????? I think someone here has had a big glass of it!!
Two simple questions:
Who controls the Iraqi oil fields and production facilities?
Who keeps the revenue from the Iraqi oil fields and controls how that revenue is used?
Hint: it ain't Bush and Cheney, or Haliburton. If you need help you can go to www.google.com. But try to bring back something current, not two years out of date. ;(
RLTW
Haliburton doesn't control the Saudi fields either. The goal is to have friendly puppet regimes so the free flow of oil is insured. Since you responded I assume you can read so go read the original foreign policy motives of installing the Shah in Iran. We actually overthrew an democracy and installed the Shah. And why did we do that?? For the fucking OOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLL.
I shouldn't even have to answer your question because your own statement undercuts your faulty logic. You implied that the French were stallin UN sanctions because of oil interests. Does Chirac personally benefit from that oil?? NO?? But the overall oil interests are the primary interests for stalling the UN. So why is it so hard for you to believe that the US would do the same thing.
We actually did it in 52 when we installed the Shah. Our history shows we actually did it in the past so why is it so hard for you to believe we would do it again??
Deficits are now A-OK with the Republican Party. They like to argue that deficits are good for the economy.
Clinton shrank the size of government. Since Bush has been in the government has grown in size.
All of this has caused a HUGE increase in taxes, only the Republicans want our kids to pay the bill at a later time, while they ship our jobs to India.
If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic!!
He did make government smaller by eliminating 4-5 divisions from the military.
I vote Libertarian now because the Republicans let me down.
If the Dems were really for small government now, Kennedy and others would bolt the party.
The fact is, there are certain things that only governments can do well. Like build highways and other infrastructure, defend the nation from attack, and funding basic scientific research that is decades away from being converted into commercially useful products.
Right now, BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans are more concerned with feathering their supporters with government largesse. The only difference between them is that the Dems are at least honest about their need to raise taxes to fund the programs that they support, while the Republicans believe that deficit spending can help the economy grow into paying for those programs. Which has never come close to being proven at the deficit levels which we are currently seeing, and certainly will not happen at the measely job growth levels (and declining average wage levels) currently being experienced.
Since both parties are equally fiscally irresponsible at present, the best we can do is vote for the man with the best intellect and character, and hope he has the courage to do the right thing. I'd submit that we have, in starting a foolhardy war in Iraq without any plan to win the peace, and in his record of running companies into bankruptcy, and his personal cowardice regarding combat, in his gentleman's Cs in school, and in his personal irresponsibility concerning drug and alcohol abuse, including DUI, an existence proof that George W. Bush is NOT that man.
Kerry, on the other hand, has demonstrated far more personal courage, personal intelligence, and willingness to listen, and modify his views when events make it necessary, than has Bush. I'd submit that your average random mid-level executive could do a better job than Bush has demonstrated in his past 4 years, and Kerry is far better than that.
Do you remember when the Demos were saying don't balance the budget on the backs of the poor!
Read welfare bitches and their bastard children.
The Democraps don't care about the budget, only winning in November, no matter how much they lie. They can always count on idiots like you believing them, though!
The party of the working class my ass, the party of the non-working parasite class.
stealth Libs wanna balance budgets by only bringing in more money.
If you want to vote for a tax less, spend less fiscally-conservative prez candidate, you're out of luck, my friend.
Bush is a big disappointment to conservatives, which makes the loony left paranoia about him all the more unfathomable. He is certainly the far lessor of two evils. If you vote for Kerry you are an idiot, or you have a death wish.