|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 14 new of 21 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 8 of 21:
| 
Dec 5 20:44 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:7: I think the current situation shows that cutting government
revenues doesn't stem the spending any. Even when it does, all too
often important nationwide programs get cut in favor of local pork.
Some of the stuff in the current spending bill is, to say the least, eye
opening. A huge budget deficit, and we're earmarking $3 million to
teach kids about golf? $50 million to put a giant indoor rainforest in
Iowa?!?
(See http://www.freep.com/news/nw/cong5_20031205.htm)
|
klg
|
|
response 9 of 21:
|
Dec 5 20:57 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, those darn Democratic programs.
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 21:
|
Dec 5 21:46 UTC 2003 |
Both the items I mentioned were inserted by Republicans.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 11 of 21:
|
Dec 6 00:16 UTC 2003 |
re1: are you through being socially autistic, stink-o?
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 21:
|
Dec 6 01:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 21:
|
Dec 6 02:59 UTC 2003 |
Jan, you describe Bush the way Garry Trudeau draws him in Doonsbury. He draws
Bush as being invisible, lacking substance, not a liberal, not a conservative,
but a NOTHING. Trudeau also drew Bush's father the same way for years, as
being a nothing, invisible. The only real difference is Bush wears a cowboy
hat but you see nothing underneath the hat. Someone once asked Bush's press
secretary when Garry Trudeau would be invited to the White House, and the
answer given was "not in this lifetime" :)
Well maybe he will if Howard Dean is elected. Trudeau and Dean were good
friends at Yale
|
mcnally
|
|
response 14 of 21:
|
Dec 6 08:04 UTC 2003 |
re #13: pay a little more attention the next time you read Doonesbury,
as you're wrong on two counts:
1) in the wake of the 2000 presidential election fiasco, Trudeau
started drawing Bush as an asterisk under the cowboy hat,
2) since the invasion of Iraq (possibly Afghanistan) Trudeau has
switched the ten gallon hat for a roman helmet.
|
twenex
|
|
response 15 of 21:
|
Dec 6 10:35 UTC 2003 |
Chambers of Commerce exist to help the local
businessmen to make money, not to improve the lot
of citizens generally by lobbying the city
council for cleaner strets, etc. And before
anyone says that if people make more money, it
means more wealth for the general population, it
is a well-known fact that when business-friendly
administrationsget elected, the rich get richer,
yes. It is also a wel-known fact that in the same
circunstances the poor get poorer.
|
bru
|
|
response 16 of 21:
|
Dec 6 12:58 UTC 2003 |
Now I get it! You get all your political opinions from the liberal left
cartoon lobby.
|
polygon
|
|
response 17 of 21:
|
Dec 6 13:00 UTC 2003 |
I think some Chambers of Commerce are genuinely community oriented.
|
twenex
|
|
response 18 of 21:
|
Dec 7 00:27 UTC 2003 |
liberal left yes, cartoon lobby no. Most political cartoon i see is Road
Runner.
|
klg
|
|
response 19 of 21:
|
Dec 7 03:50 UTC 2003 |
re: "#15 (twenex): . . . It is also a wel-known (sic) fact that in
the same circunstances (sic) the poor get poorer."
And when the rich get poorer, the poor get richer????
Which explains why the poor have thrived under the recent recession!
(Mr. tweenex comes up with some wonderful explanations! Is he related
to Yogi Berra?)
|
twenex
|
|
response 20 of 21:
|
Dec 7 04:55 UTC 2003 |
Yes, through the legal distribution of wealth, or the provision of tax breaks
to the lowest-income and more deswerving members of society, rather than the
rich who can afford to pay higher taxes, or the provision of tax breaks across
the board.
When lower taxes are paid by the lower-income brackets of society, the only
impediment to the proper functioning of the system is corruption; but since
awarding tax breaks to the higher echelons of society in preference to the
lower ones is also corruption, the argument against uniform taxes, or against
tax breaks for therich but not the poor, is invalidated.
"When human rights conflict with property rights, human rights must prevail."
- Abraham Lincoln.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 21:
|
Dec 7 23:26 UTC 2003 |
(Are we supposed to say thanks?)
|