Various Topics on Mustang

..e.. ..

In article <rqvpg1p9vrlg9femb0cr366r93lt60m2nn@4ax.com>, ZombyWoof wrote:

>>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
>>Saturday delivery?

Let's not eliminate saturday delivery, just eliminate the pounds of ****
that I get in the mail that goes directly from the mail box to the trash
or recycle.

..e.. ..

In article <2fOdnVyPbYd_uZDeRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> If you want to see how the Bush's tax policies have effected your tax
> rates check out this link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
> It graphs Tax Freedom Day for the last 25 years and shows what that day
> was over the last 100+ years. Look further down the page and see the
> pie chart that compares federal/state/local taxes to other typical
> expenses. Taxes took 107 days of income and household and household
> operations (i.e. mortage, utilities, repairs etc.) only took 65 days of
> income! On average government takes 65% more money than the average
> person spends on owning and maintaining a house every year. Plus, I
> would wager they don't calculate all the user fees and micellaneous
> hidden taxes in their figures.

My biggest expense by far is taxes. Nothing else comes close. Even if I
start adding stuff together. Taxes are probably about equal to all my
other expenses, manditory, optional, and otherwise combined.

Government can help people the most by eliminating the dependency cl***,
making sure that everyone pays at least some taxes and p*** the
savings on to those who actually pay taxes.

Of course that will never happen because a dependency cl*** and a cl***
of voters that pay no taxes (of a particular type) are in government's best
interest. The group that is dependent will continue to vote for the
status quo and those who pay no taxes will continually vote for tax
increases on other people.

..e.. ..

In article <430D2B2D.1536803C@warcrimes.gov>, Hank wrote:

> Here in the U.S., 50 million people have no health care,

This is a bogus figure because it includes people who simply have a gap
in coverage. For instance, I had a gap in coverage when I went from one
employer to another. I then counted as not having health care for the
full year. Pretty bogus. Also counted are people who on their own decide
they would rather have the money and pay for insurance even though they
could afford to.

> and
> if you look at infant mortality rates, you see countries with
> a socialist government with the lowest rates and a high quality
> of life.

Quality of life is a problem in the USA because there is a constant
influx of people willing to work for very low wages and we have a system
that basically gives us very little time for our own lives. It's work
hard until you die. I'd love to have a month off each year. If the choice
was the status quo and gasoline taxed to $5 a gallon but I got a month
off every year, I'd go for the later.

> I suppose you're not concerned with bu$h's record spending,
> deficits, or his sale of our economy to Communist China,
> either.

We have a one party system. The differences amount to nothing more than
words. The sale of our economy to Communist China became wholesale while
Clinton was in office and has only continued. In fact most of the changes
that allowed this occured under Clinton. Both of our so called parties
support this nonsense because their money supply supports it.

It's the real treason here. Acting in the interest of lobbiests and
campiagn donors instead of doing what is right for the nation.

> Fairly taxing the wealthiest top 5% percent, has nothing to
> do with your bizarre "removing incentives" rant. You're not
> making any sense at all.

If you look at who actually pays the taxes in this nation I would say the
top 5% of wage earners is currently paying 53% of the income taxes while
earning 32% of all income. The top 50% of wage earners are currently
paying 96% of the income taxes while earning 86% of all income.

Could you point out what isn't fair here and in which direction?

> If bu$h continues to export our jobs,

This started before shrub and only continues under him unchecked.

> and cut job training
> and education funding, that's exactly what will happen.
> We should stop giving government handouts to billion dollar
> corporations before we eliminate school lunches for poor
> kids. Greed is ugly.

Democrats have had control of the schools for decades. They decided to
use the schools to increase government power and promote the status quo.
The republicans don't fix this because it's not in their intrests to, in
fact it is also in their interests to make sure people are not educated.

Corporations get money under democrat admins as well. So do foreign
countries. You just don't hear about it as much.

We have one effective party in this nation. The difference between Ds and
Rs is an illusion, a perception to keep the populace bickering back and
forth while the elites continue to control everything unchecked.

I'll sum up how the two parties are the same with a quote:

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the
Russians, We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we
reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in
our national interest." -Sen. John Kerry, CNN, 1997.

..cha.. ..hnso.. ..

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas.
>
>
>>>Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas
>>>he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which
>>>in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many
>>>of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or
>>>trying to control.), back up.
>
>
>>I want the market to set the price of gas, not the government. If that
>>means it is $3.00/gallon or $1.00/gallon then so be it. Capitalism
>>works best when the laws of supply and demand are applied. If the
>>government want to get us away from oil then they could develop new
>>technologies for alternative energy sources and give it away to
>>companies willing to bring it to market. Don't inflate gasoline prices
>>to the point I have to ride a moped to get around. I'm not even going
>>to get into how unfair it would be to lower income people.
>
>
> The problem with letting the market set the price on oil is that
> nothing will happen until oil wells starting sucking air. Then
> there'll be a power grab (read major wars between the Middle East,
> China, US, Russia, etc.) to control the remaining reserves) and a
> scramble to *try* to come up with alternatives.... but by then it'll be
> too late and most of those who survive the war will be left sitting in
> the dark and walking. I say get the investment going NOW! Gas is
> already taxed, I say let them tax it more to give companies incentives
> to start searching for viable alternatives.

I remember 30 years ago when the environmentalists said we would run out
of oil by now. Environmentalists have cried wolf so many times that no
one can believe them anymore. They have a habit of trying to scare us
into enacting their agenda. The oil supply is not going to dry up like
turning off a water faucet. It will more likely be a slow process that
will take decades to occur and it might not happen for 100 years if
technology keeps improving the yields from existing oil fields and the
ability to locate new ones. Now if for some reason OPEC would turn off
the tap as a political statement then you bet your *** there would be a
war. It wouldn't be just us fighting it. The Europeans, Japanese,
Chinese among others would probably be right there with us even if they
only cut it off on us. If our economy tanks so does theirs.

Technology and/or high oil prices will eventually move us to alternative
energy sources. IMO, the move is inevitable. Whether it happens in 20
years or 50 years makes little difference in the big picture. I just
don't think it will happen in an abrupt manor but in a process that will
take 10-20 years or longer.

> And THEN, to compensate everyone (the rich included) for the higher
> price of gas, the government gives us other breaks on other taxes.

Having government artificially raise the price of oil based energy
sources is a slippery slope I just don't want to go down. If the
government was trustworthy and capable then I might think otherwise but
they have done nothing to instill this kind of confidence in me.
>
><big snip>
>
> Currently the Republican *base* is being driven by big business and the
> religous right. Others, like yourself, have joined the ranks because
> the Democrats currently have no message and no messenger.

I don't see the religious right wielding that much clout in the
Republican party. Look at all the popular pro-choice Republicans the
spoke at the last convention. They have shifted toward the middle, IMO,
instead of moving to the far right. I believe this is why Bush got 60+
million votes in the last election. The Democratic party has been taken
over by the far left for the last 5-6 years. Right now I doubt a
Democrat that is a true center leaning candidate can win the primaries
and become their nominee. The Dems have left the center wide open for
the Republicans and they are rushing to the center to grab as many
voters as they can.

>>I am self employed and
>>haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is
>>because for me there is no better alternative that stands a snowball's
>>chance in hell of winning an election.
>
>
> Mike, elections have become popularity contests. I don't buy for a
> minute that the Republicans have a lock on anything. All it takes is
> the "right candidate" and good PR/spin team around him/her to build an
> image and anyone could win tomorrow. It's just that right now Rove and
> company are the best PR/spin team around.

I agree to a point but this last election wasn't a popularity contest.
In fact, it was one of the most issue based elections I have seen since
the election of Ronald Regan in 1980. The Democrats know the majority
of the public doesn't want a tax and spend government which leaves them
with a big gaping hole in their platform. My problem with the
Republicans is they want a "don't tax and still spend anyway"
government. While I don't like either position I see the Republicans as
the lesser of two evils.

>>I don't care about any of the religious issues. I do care greatly about
>>conservative economic issues.
>
>
> The Bush team is anything but conservative on economics. In fact he's
> been getting drilled by conservative groups for his spending.

I agree 100%.

>> I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting
>>Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I
>>know is that should liberals get their agenda enacted they will run this
>>country off a cliff economically and from a national security standpoint.
>
>
> Why is liberal considered a bad word? Because in my dictionary,
> liberal sounds pretty darn good.

Historically speaking, being a liberal is fine. The trouble is that the
"liberals" of today are promoting a socialist agenda. They will never
admit it but it is why they have no ideas. If they told us their real
agenda they would be DOA politically. They (with major help from Ronald
Regan) have made the term an undesirable label, politically speaking.

I find the dynamics of liberal politics and the old school media quite
intriguing. The press (i.e. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC etc.) has delivered the
Democratic party into the hands of the far left. Right now a centrist
Democrat can't even get noticed by the press or the Democratic party.
Hillary is trying so hard to color her liberal roots and look like a
centrist because she knows she can't win running as a liberal. She
might just pull it off too. It is a clear sign that in today's world
"liberal" is a bad word.

>>Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote
>>out and all the corporate CEO's voted.
>
>
> He won because of what's going on in the Middle East. The folks on the
> fence didn't want to see a whole new team try to formulate a whole new
> game to win. They figured they didn't want to throw a monkey wrench in
> things... that it was better to let the current team see if they can
> finish/fix what they started.

Switching presidents in a time of war helped him but, IMO, was a small
component in his re-election. I don't think most people had much
confidence in Kerry's abilities regarding national security. Hell, he
couldn't even articulate a position on the war that would stay the same
for more than a day. Looking like a hawk on national security issues is
a big stretch for a true-blue liberal. IMO, Bush won because he
successfully convinced a majority of voters that Kerry was a cl***ic
liberal and at this time the country doesn't want a liberal president.
Since the liberals can't tell us their real agenda they were stuck with
just complaining about what Bush had done the last four years while
proposing no decent alternatives. The Dems can't rely on the press for
promotion that is effective like they could in the past several decades.
Both sides can be heard now.

Also, I believe the Swift Boat Vets were devastating to Kerry. The fact
he didn't directly address them made them even more effective. My
brother is a Vietnam vet and voted Democrat most of his life. He HATED
Kerry and voted for Bush as did the overwhelming majority of his Army
buddies. If this is what happened nationally, it had to cost Kerry
millions of votes. I still think there were things in Kerry's military
records that were devastating to him. If nothing was there why in the
world wouldn't he have released them and defused the whole Swift Boat
movement?

>>He got them because a vast
>>majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun
>>control, tax increases, etc. rammed down their throats.
>
>
> Personally, I think Clinton did a pretty darn good job with the
> economy. Taxes weren't out of control. He was fiscally
> responsible/conservative and had us running in the black. Bush on the
> other hand has us bleeding red ink, and it appears, for a long time to
> come. Gay marrige is hotter subject now than it has ever been. And as
> far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to
> wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health
> issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing
> that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning
> shotguns for quail hunting.

My biggest problem with him was ignoring the growing terrorist threat.
Especially after the first World Trade Center bombing. That was our
real wake-up call, not 9-11. They wanted to topple that building then
and if they had succeeded the death tole would have made 9-11's look
mild in comparison.

Also, lets be real about him being fiscally conservative. He and
Hillary was hell bent on a liberal agenda until the 1994 Congressional
elections when Newt and company took over Congress. Remember
nationalized health care? I rest my case. That election scared the
**** out of him and he knew that to survive the next election he had to
run, not walk, the the center. If it wasn't for Ross Perot he would
have never been elected in 1992 as he got just 43% of the vote. With
this and the country turning more conservative he switched into survival
mode.

It was the Contract with America that promoted lower budget deficits and
economic growth more than anything Clinton did. Here's a link to it:
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html I only wish Congress
would follow it today. He just jumped on the band wagon so he could
ride the to the next election with a fighting chance. Plus, let's not
forget when all the corporate scandals were in high gear. It wasn't
under Bush's terms, it was Clinton's. What about that stock market dot
com bubble? The stock market free fall didn't occur on Bush's watch.
it was Clinton's. Also, who set up the conditions for the growth of the
1990's to occur? It was George Bush Sr. IMO, Clinton has been given a
lot of credit for nothing. They way they left office really summed up
he and Hillary's whole existence in the White House. Bill was busy
granting pardons for favors and Hillary was packing up everything that
wasn't nailed down.

>>The majority of
>>the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes
>>to taxes, gay marriage, gun control, government intrusion in everyday
>>lives to name a few.
>
>
> See above. For the record, I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, but I
> see a problem with listing "gay marriage" and "intrusion in everyday
> lives" together.

Just because they are in the same sentence doesn't mean they are
mutually exclusive or unjustified as a concern of the voters. Gays can
get everything they need legally from civil unions which I fully
support. If they want to make a religious statement then I'm sure they
can find a church to marry them in the eyes of God.

>>Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state rednecks. They were from a > broad cross section of the country. He made percentage gains in all ethnic
>>and gender groups from the 2000 election.
>
>
>> No political talking head gave him a chance if Kerry got more than 54
>>million votes. The point being is that what many think is a traditional
>>Republican vote just doesn't fit anymore. After the 2004 election it
>>should be clear that Republicans positions are more mainstream than
>>anyone thought possible.
>
>
> Bottom line: He's a war time president yet he barely won. Rove and
> company shouldn't get smug.

It wasn't a Regan style blowout by any means. Never the less he won.
IMO, he would have won handily if he hadn't blown the first debate.
Also, Kerry got a tremendous boost from all the positive press he
received. After this election it is obvious that the old school press
is extremely biased toward the Democratic party. If the coverage would
have been fair it would have cost Kerry 5-10 points, IMO.

>>>>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes.
>
>
>>>They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a
>>>little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check
>>>they don't have the funds for.
>
>
>>IMO, we basically have two choices. First is to lower taxes and run a
>>higher debt (BTW, our debt relative to GDP is better than any other
>>developed country) and the second is to have us taxed excessively and
>>still run up the deficit. Of these two, I'll take the first.
>
>
> I'll take the third. Get fiscally conservative and lower taxes.

Absolutely.

>>If you expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional.
>
>
> WHAT?! You mean all those fiscally conservative Republicans in
> Congress can't be trusted with our tax dollars?

Just a handful of them. Definitely not enough to make a difference.

>>At least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases tax
>>revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and
>>reduce tax revenue which will result in a perpetual downward spiral.
>
>
> Mike, you've taken the ball and ran it out of the stadium. I'm only
> saying to further tax gasoline to stimulate investment in alternative
> fuel sources... and that's all I'm saying.

I am getting pretty far from the topic at hand.

>>>>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here
>>>>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there
>>>>property taxes are sky rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of
>>>>the local government aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local
>>>>taxes. Theaverage person is starting to see what is being done to them
>>>
>>>>from a tax standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I
>>>
>>>>believe there will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how
>>>>they are taxed.
>
>
>>>Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be
>>>paid.
>
>
>>Not really. It will need to be "serviced". It will never be paid off.
>
>
> You're right, not at this rate.
>
>
>>>>Well, I feel better after that rant.
>
>
>>>Me too.
>
>
>>Feels good, huh?
>
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> Thanks for the conversation!

Same here.

> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

..cha.. ..hnso.. ..

Brent P wrote:
> In article <rqvpg1p9vrlg9femb0cr366r93lt60m2nn@4ax.com>, ZombyWoof wrote:
>
>
>>>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
>>>Saturday delivery?
>
>
> Let's not eliminate saturday delivery, just eliminate the pounds of ****
> that I get in the mail that goes directly from the mail box to the trash
> or recycle.

If it weren't for that "****" stamps would be $2.50 a pop.

..e.. ..

In article <Z-idnY82vp1M7ZDeRVn-qg@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <rqvpg1p9vrlg9femb0cr366r93lt60m2nn@4ax.com>, ZombyWoof wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
>>>>Saturday delivery?
>>
>>
>> Let's not eliminate saturday delivery, just eliminate the pounds of ****
>> that I get in the mail that goes directly from the mail box to the trash
>> or recycle.
>
> If it weren't for that "****" stamps would be $2.50 a pop.

Maybe... but energy would be saved by eliminating it!

..cha.. ..hnso.. ..

Brent P wrote:
> In article <Z-idnY82vp1M7ZDeRVn-qg@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rqvpg1p9vrlg9femb0cr366r93lt60m2nn@4ax.com>, ZombyWoof wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated
>>>>>Saturday delivery?
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's not eliminate saturday delivery, just eliminate the pounds of ****
>>>that I get in the mail that goes directly from the mail box to the trash
>>>or recycle.
>>
>>If it weren't for that "****" stamps would be $2.50 a pop.
>
>
> Maybe... but energy would be saved by eliminating it!

But think of all the lost jobs. )

..1..

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124939771.967907.18320@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> >>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas.
>
>> > Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas
>> > he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which
>> > in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many
>> > of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or
>> > trying to control.), back up.
>
>> I want the market to set the price of gas, not the government. If that
>> means it is $3.00/gallon or $1.00/gallon then so be it. Capitalism
>> works best when the laws of supply and demand are applied. If the
>> government want to get us away from oil then they could develop new
>> technologies for alternative energy sources and give it away to
>> companies willing to bring it to market. Don't inflate gasoline prices
>> to the point I have to ride a moped to get around. I'm not even going
>> to get into how unfair it would be to lower income people.
>
> The problem with letting the market set the price on oil is that
> nothing will happen until oil wells starting sucking air. Then
> there'll be a power grab (read major wars between the Middle East,
> China, US, Russia, etc.) to control the remaining reserves) and a
> scramble to *try* to come up with alternatives.... but by then it'll be
> too late and most of those who survive the war will be left sitting in
> the dark and walking. I say get the investment going NOW! Gas is
> already taxed, I say let them tax it more to give companies incentives
> to start searching for viable alternatives.
>
> And THEN, to compensate everyone (the rich included) for the higher
> price of gas, the government gives us other breaks on other taxes.
>
>
>> > Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel
>> > sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the
>> > oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make
>> > good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives.
>
>> I guess the free market system is working if they know they can't
>> totally rape us on oil prices. IMO, we will stop using oil only when
>> the clear majority of the people in the country want to use alternative
>> energy sources. Whether that results from economic, political and/or
>> environmental reasons is anyone's guess.
>
> See above. It'll end up being a big ugly war. A war that no one will
> win because all will be lost.
>
>> >>>>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most.
>
>> > Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the
>> > forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes.
>
>> Income redistribution doesn't really solve anything. People on the
>> lower end of the economic ladder need to be given opportunities, not
>> endless handouts that make them dependent, IMHO, of course. Plus, I
>> don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, whether it be
>> money or cheese.
>
> Mike, I'm not talking about only compensating the poor or the middle
> cl*** or whoever. I'm saying compensating *everyone* with some form(s)
> of tax breaks for the increase in gas taxes.
>
>> >>The reason I am so p***ionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping
>> >>them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the
>> >>local, state and federal taxes are combined. Individually they don't
>> >>seem so bad but add them up and most of us would be shocked. The thing
>> >>is that many of these taxes are not based on income so the poor are hit
>> >>disproportionately hard. Hell, state governments even pray on people
>> >>through lotteries. Many of the people I see buying those tickets
>> >>haven't got the income to justify such an extravagant purchase. Do you
>> >>think the government cares that they are praying on the poor by
>> >>offering
>> >>lottery tickets? Granted, no one is forced to by a lottery ticket but
>> >>I
>> >>expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money
>> >>from
>> >>people that can't afford it.
>
>> > Aren't they required to print the odds of winning on every ticket? If
>> > folks can't do simple math, or use simple logic, they deserve their
>> > money to be ****ed away. But let's face the facts, most want a
>> > "simple" way to fortune.
>
>> If they do print the odds on the tickets I would wager the print is so
>> small you need a microscope to read it. It is true that many people are
>> just looking for the easy fortune. This is why we will always have a
>> segment of the population that is poor.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> They just don't want to work, period.
>
> Agreed, again.
>
>> This is why I have a problem with just handing out government ***istance
>> without requiring results. There are a small group of people that will
>> make
>> a career from playing the system. It isn't fair to the taxpayer, or the
>> people that truly need ***istance, to let these people be leaches. This
>> is
>> why, IMO, things like income redistribution doesn't work. It entices
>> people
>> to become dependent instead of self sufficient.
>
> And agreed again. But I'm not talking about gas taxing everyone and
> giving the proceeds to the poor or lazy. I'm talking about giving
> *everyone* other tax breaks for the added tax on fuel.
>
>> Let's face it there are many, many people who would be happy to take a
>> government handout over gainful employment. As the old saying goes,
>> "Whatever you subsidize your create more of it".
>
> And I'd be subsidzing the search for viable alternative fuel sources.
>
>> >>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
>> >>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
>> >>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
>> >>and more often than not the Presidency?
>
>> > They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket?
>> > Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden.
>
>> Respectfully, this is where you are dead wrong. I vote Republican and
>> in no way fit the stereotype you just stated.
>
> Currently the Republican *base* is being driven by big business and the
> religous right. Others, like yourself, have joined the ranks because
> the Democrats currently have no message and no messenger.
>
>> I am self employed and
>> haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is
>> because for me there is no better alternative that stands a snowball's
>> chance in hell of winning an election.
>
> Mike, elections have become popularity contests. I don't buy for a
> minute that the Republicans have a lock on anything. All it takes is
> the "right candidate" and good PR/spin team around him/her to build an
> image and anyone could win tomorrow. It's just that right now Rove and
> company are the best PR/spin team around.
>
>> I don't care about any of the religious issues. I do care greatly about
>> conservative economic issues.
>
> The Bush team is anything but conservative on economics. In fact he's
> been getting drilled by conservative groups for his spending.
>
>> I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting
>> Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I
>> know is that should liberals get their agenda enacted they will run this
>> country off a cliff economically and from a national security standpoint.
>
> Why is liberal considered a bad word? Because in my dictionary,
> liberal sounds pretty darn good.
>
>> Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote
>> out and all the corporate CEO's voted.
>
> He won because of what's going on in the Middle East. The folks on the
> fence didn't want to see a whole new team try to formulate a whole new
> game to win. They figured they didn't want to throw a monkey wrench in
> things... that it was better to let the current team see if they can
> finish/fix what they started.
>
>> He got them because a vast
>> majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun
>> control, tax increases, etc. rammed down their throats.
>
> Personally, I think Clinton did a pretty darn good job with the
> economy. Taxes weren't out of control. He was fiscally
> responsible/conservative and had us running in the black. Bush on the
> other hand has us bleeding red ink, and it appears, for a long time to
> come. Gay marrige is hotter subject now than it has ever been. And as
> far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to
> wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health
> issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing
> that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning
> shotguns for quail hunting.



You really need a little more information on this subject.
The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or shotguns.
Waiting periods are NOT about background checks. That has been covered
since 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from one
or multiple states, they have already p***ed one or more stringent
background check. How many is enough? Should you have to retake your
drivers exam once a month? After all many more Americans die from
automobiles than guns.

Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one or
more guns? What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their
2nd, 3rd, or 4th gun make?

If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would
stop supporting the har***ment of honest law abiding Americans, and go after
the criminals.
If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly
little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are no
serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun.

Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms, without a bunch
of thinly veiled excuses for infringing on that right.

Pro Second Amendment Americans are a huge block of voters.





>
>> The majority of
>> the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes
>> to taxes, gay marriage, gun control, government intrusion in everyday
>> lives to name a few.
>
> See above. For the record, I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, but I
> see a problem with listing "gay marriage" and "intrusion in everyday
> lives" together.
>
>> Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state rednecks. They were
>> from a > broad cross section of the country. He made percentage gains in
>> all ethnic
>> and gender groups from the 2000 election.
>
>> No political talking head gave him a chance if Kerry got more than 54
>> million votes. The point being is that what many think is a traditional
>> Republican vote just doesn't fit anymore. After the 2004 election it
>> should be clear that Republicans positions are more mainstream than
>> anyone thought possible.
>
> Bottom line: He's a war time president yet he barely won. Rove and
> company shouldn't get smug.
>
>> >>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut
>> >>taxes.
>
>> > They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a
>> > little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check
>> > they don't have the funds for.
>
>> IMO, we basically have two choices. First is to lower taxes and run a
>> higher debt (BTW, our debt relative to GDP is better than any other
>> developed country) and the second is to have us taxed excessively and
>> still run up the deficit. Of these two, I'll take the first.
>
> I'll take the third. Get fiscally conservative and lower taxes.
>
>> If you expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional.
>
> WHAT?! You mean all those fiscally conservative Republicans in
> Congress can't be trusted with our tax dollars?
>
>> At least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases
>> tax
>> revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and
>> reduce tax revenue which will result in a perpetual downward spiral.
>
> Mike, you've taken the ball and ran it out of the stadium. I'm only
> saying to further tax gasoline to stimulate investment in alternative
> fuel sources... and that's all I'm saying.
>
>> >>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening
>> >>here
>> >>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there
>> >>property taxes are sky rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of
>> >>the local government aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their
>> >>local
>> >>taxes. Theaverage person is starting to see what is being done to them
>> >>from a tax standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I
>> >>believe there will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how
>> >>they are taxed.
>
>> > Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be
>> > paid.
>
>> Not really. It will need to be "serviced". It will never be paid off.
>
> You're right, not at this rate.
>
>> >>Well, I feel better after that rant.
>
>> > Me too.
>
>> Feels good, huh?
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> Thanks for the conversation!
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

..e.. ..

In article <fHePe.10663$Vg7.3109@trnddc06>, 351CJ wrote:

> If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly
> little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are no
> serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun.

Furthermore, the penalities for having the illegal gun will always be
less than the crimes these criminals intend to use the gun for. So the
penalty will not deter them by definition because they are CRIMINALS.

....

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> Hank wrote:

>> Go back to insulting the grieving mother of a dead soldier.
>>That's more your speed...

> While I agree with much that you say,

You admit that in public?!

> I don't agree with this. Her son was an *adult* who knew the
> risk and accepted that risk. While she has every right to
> object to war, to use her son's death as some sort of
> justification for us to pull out, is a damn joke.

How do you figure that? Seems like people who are
directly and tragically affected by bu$h's terror
attack on the innocent People of Iraq have a right
to voice their grievances and opinions - certainly
more of a right than those who aren't.

> The bottom line is her son died doing what *he* thought
> was right.

What gives you the idea that Casey thought invading Iraq was
right? His Mother says he didn't want to go, and that he signed
up to serve his country, not kill, commit war crimes, and die for
the treasonous, draft dodging war criminals on the bu$h regime.
Regardless, attacking his grieving mother seems pretty low to
me - whether Casey approved of the war or not...


-

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.


"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...