Viking: you represent common sense conservatism. Thank you. You are correct.George: you represent knee jerk don't-even-try-to-understand-Those-Who-Disagree thinking. You are off base.Chris.
What George does is "knee twitching" compared to the way you have elevated "knee jerking."
LL: The only principle I can identify that Kerry consistently embraces is the principle of doing whatever it takes to get reelected. I am not aware that you are running for reelection. Ergo, I do not understand what principles you and Kerry share. I invite you to expound further on the common principles you and Kerry share.Also, I have never referred to you as an idiot or ignoramus. I do think you are confused and very smart. Sometimes it appears as if your intelligence gets in the way of your ability to receive and understand the truth. Keep seeking and searching, and remember that God provides a lamp for our feet (one step at a time), not a headlight for a panorama view.
What the heck are you trying to do to me, complementing me like that! Are you trying to get me thrown out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Just kidding...
I think that one fair criticism of Kerry is one that people here have identified: he can be quoted as having taken both sides of an issue, often in a very short period of time, giving the strong impression that he is governed by expediancy and not principles. Perhaps you could identify what issues he has been consistant on, and where you agree with him...
quote: ...the principle of doing whatever it takes to get reelected.
The fundamental basis of American politics, after all!
[b]This should pretty well shoot down LL's VRWC argument - From the Boston Globe.[/b]So what does Kerry say he did with those medals? As with so many of his shifts and flip-flops, it's all on the record.Take 1:Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in an antiwar protest 33 years ago?A. Yes. As The Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.' "Take 2:Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971, interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."Take 3:Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," The Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln [Mass.], at his request."Take 4:Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 reelection campaign, he told the Globe that he only threw the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to two other veterans -- the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."[URL=[url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04... 4/04/29/the_kerry_medals_mystery/[/url]]Boston Globe[/URL][b]Chris, more lies from the radical right? [/b] :confused: Al
[ 04-29-2004: Message edited by: Al Greenlaw ][ 04-29-2004: Message edited by: Al Greenlaw ]
"Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive."This sounds very much like someone trying to have it both ways, and then trying to have it neither way.And it has nothing to do with his service in Vietnam.
When you stick to the truth, you don't need much of a memory, as you'll always refer to the truth.LL: Here's a tactic you have used on others, so I'll invite you to use it on yourself: Since you haven't replied to the request of explaining what principles you and Kerry have in common, I'll presume your silence means you either were mistaken, and you actually prefer Bush, with whom you most likely share more principles than you'd care to admit.Tag, you're it. :cool:
LL: I apologize about the poor wording of my previous post. The word "either" should have been deleted. Adios, amigo.
Al:I don't for the life of me know what those quotes prove - other than he threw some stuff over a freakin fence. An eyewitness (whom I heard on radio) said he was there, saw kerry grab a small handfull of his ribbons, and took some medals from wheelchair bound vets, and threw them all over...This is typical right wing crap. If you thought bush AWOL was irrelevant, this new garbage sinks to new lows...John:You are correct to hold my feet to the fire..In a general overview, Kerry and I are on the same page as follows:1. That the tax structure in the US is heavily benefitting the wealthy and shafting the middle class. Inane tax cuts like the death tax and dividend tax cuts benefit almost exclusively the wealthy, while spending goes up meaning someone other than the wealthy has to take up the slack...2. I think he is far less arrogant and absoltely self assured to the point of not even being able to find any mistake even possibly made as indicated by Bush. Kerry is at least a little inward looking and he has an intellect to really consider a problem. I don't think Bush does.3. Kerry generally supports my views on social welfare programs, which I think are necessay in an enlightened society... I think Bush is not on my page there.4. Kerry actually seems to give a flying leap about the environment, a topic which Bush could care absolutely less about. More air toxins? Fine! More coal plants with less stack cleaners? Fine! Drilling in Anwar for a paltry amount of oil? Fine! My list could continue but you get the idea and you know why he and I are generally alike on basic core priciples and beliefs..Chris.
"Al: This is typical right wing crap."Chris: the article was in the [b]BOSTON GLOBE [/b]for crying out loud. How right wing is that? It is important because it goes to his character. I am always amazed at how easy it is for you on the left to overlook the character issue. I guess that comes with your innate need to be all things for all people. You don't need character or responsibility, for that matter, if you are going to solve all problems through government largesse. If his home town paper is questioning him, maybe it time for you to reassess. Al[ 04-29-2004: Message edited by: Al Greenlaw ]
"1. That the tax structure in the US is heavily benefitting the wealthy and shafting the middle class. Inane tax cuts like the death tax and dividend tax cuts benefit almost exclusively the wealthy,..."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------You know this is not true. I benefited rather well from the series of tax cuts, especially on the changes to investment income and I am clearly middle class. Not only did I have more to spend (reduced withholding) but I also got a little boost in the refund this year. And whether you wish to admit it or not, estate taxes do crush many middle income people. How many bites should the government get? The big difference between you and I, is that I have an inherent trust in the goodness of people and you prefer to trust the government. Give poeple an opportunity and they will thrive, give them government handouts and they lose the ability to succeed on their own. It really is that simple. Al
As for character, Al... I didn't hear you talking about Bush's lying to HIS hometown paper about his criminal history... that's about character.. As for trusting people/government, I guess you're right in some ways. I don't trust people to give stuff up without major incentives.When I traveled the world, I found that a carload of people in a cruddy falling apart car were FAR more likely to offer me a ride than someone in a nice car. In fact, it was only poor people who offered rides.Likewise, the US, the wealthiest country on the planet, gives far less (as a % of GDP) than other developed nations to worldwide causes (food aid, refugees, etc).Finally, any fundraiser knows that 90% of money is made from those making $50k or less.Which leads me to believe the following addage, which I just made up:"The more you have, the less you are willing to give away to those too lazy to achieve as much success as you."p.s. Has the AMT kicked in for you and your income yet?p.s.s. How many "middle income" families ($50k to $150k/yr) are hit by the estate tax, which hits people at $750,000 [I think that's right] estates or more?Chris.
Chris, what "criminal history" ? Please define. I don't accept your argument that the rich give less. I think they give in different ways. Go around Maine and see how much Stephen and Tabitha King have donated. Examples: The library in Bangor. A beautiful little league baseball filed in Bangor. A community center in Corinna (it may be another town - but close). The list goes on. Rich people tend to form foundations and donate through them or make large donations directly. Mrs. Croc (sp) gave how much to PBS?Average people tend to give to organizations like the Red Cross, etc, because that is what they can afford, or they volunteer their time. Why don't you provide some statistics to back up your claim that we don't do enough with foreign aide. If we quit providing money for the U.N., it would fold tomorrow. In reality I am of the mind that we give too much in foreign aide. Most of it is ripped off by corrupt governments and doesn't get to the people it is intended for. Just look at the food for "palaces" program run by the U.N. in Iraq. Look at the billions that Aristide stole in Haiti. You will never convince me that the estate tax is a good idea. Why should wealth that has already been taxed over and over, and accumulated over a lifetime, be subjected to a 50% or 75% tax when the person dies? No AMT yet. Al
Al:I'll answer one at a time, but it takes time:On the estate tax.. here's my concern:Daddy does a brilliant job building a corporation. He makes millions. Invests it in the stock market. He purchases high cost dividend Class A stocks only. He makes $1mil per year in dividend income. We pass a law the eliminates taxes on that income - no tax on dividends. That's free money for Daddy. He re-invests most of it. His portfolio grows, ergo his dividend tax free income grows.Daddy dies. His multi-millions in stocks goes to his son tax free (because there's no death tax now). Son now has realized income of millions in the form of the stocks, which stocks generate millions in tax free dividends.Son can live his entire life without paying a dime in (income) taxes, or social security, all the while living a lavish life.Average Joe who makes $37,000 per year pays 40% of his income to various taxes, payroll deductions. Average Joe is paying for the military, homeland security, police, fire, etc...While Son is paying nothing.Is that a balanced society in your view? Are my premises wrong somewhere?Chris.
quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
[b]Son can live his entire life without paying a dime in (income) taxes, or social security, all the while living a lavish life.Average Joe who makes $37,000 per year pays 40% of his income to various taxes, payroll deductions. Average Joe is paying for the military, homeland security, police, fire, etc...While Son is paying nothing.Is that a balanced society in your view? Are my premises wrong somewhere?Chris.[/b]
Yes your premises ae wrong as worthless son will spend a good bit of that million which will create more real jobs than any number of average Joes paying taxes.
You are only right if Evil rich kid sits on the money and lives like average Joe.