Rep vs. Dem Differences

In article , Bob Noel
writes:

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats


This would be the same Democrats that passed and maintained the drug,
pornography, prostitution, and sodommy laws for 40 years?


Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.

unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?


More accurate would be "Plunder the productive to buy the votes of the
dependent."

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Icebound" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
Europe
has several governments with diverse coalitions that change more often
than
some people change their underwear.

The old saying...Italy has more elections than a Chinese honeymoon.

Paul

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident. I
would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.

Maybe he could have done what the rest of us did. Immediately
go and find a source of information as to what was happening.

Internet, TV, word of mouth, whatever.

And I'm not even an American in the US.

Paul

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Noel
writes:

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats


This would be the same Democrats that passed and maintained the drug,
pornography, prostitution, and sodommy laws for 40 years?


I was trying to present a snapshot of the present situation. With all the
changes (in both parties) it would be nearly impossible to have this be
applicable for a period of years, much less decades.

In article ,
"Paul Sengupta" wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident. I
would be very interested in knowing what magical powers Presidents have.

Maybe he could have done what the rest of us did. Immediately
go and find a source of information as to what was happening.

Lets take this back to 9/11. If I had been on one of the hijacked
planes, I would have done nothing. I would have been wondering what
Cuba was going to be like

When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
believe it was about a 15 minute gap.

So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
investigate.

Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
informed.

Pretty easy choice to me

LG


Internet, TV, word of mouth, whatever.

And I'm not even an American in the US.

Paul

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

...snip... Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government


This is a good thing...
.... providing that the "retainers" are paying their share of the costs
involved in producing those earnings.

Are they paying their share for feeding, housing, and education of the
workforces that they use? Are they paying their share for repairing the
consequences of any mistakes they make? Are they paying their share of the
infrastructure costs for the public transportation systems that they use to
distribute their goods and services?

Who has paid for the disposal of all that nuclear waste generated by the
power plants...or the stacks of chemical and biological WMD still remaining
on American soil? Or the health costs of the respiratory patients due to
pollution?

Are we reaping the benefits and "retaining more earnings" because all these
infrastructures were installed and are maintained by "somebody else" (or
will be paid for by somebody way in the future)???? When Exxon destroyed
the livelihood of a few tens of thousands in Prince William Sound, and was
told that it owed them $5billion, how much did it actually pay?


It IS the job of Governments to ensure that these costs are borne equitably
by all its citizens.

If you say that they are doing a terrible job of it, you will get no
arguement from me.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:



Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.


Well, then, correct the misunderstanding. If it is so "fundamental" then is
should be trivial to correct.

Legrande Harris wrote:

When I turned on the TV to CNBC, for financial stuff, they had pictures
of the burning WTC. No one had any idea of what had happened, they had
reports that a plane had hit the WTC but that was all. Then the second
tower was hit and it was apparent that it was a deliberate attack. I
believe it was about a 15 minute gap.

So we have Bush who spent 8 minutes continuing to talk to some kids
after the first attack, when nothing was known, before he went to
investigate.

The problem with this line of logic is that the 8 minutes of inaction
was after he was told about the second plane. He had been told of the
first plane prior to entering the classroom. You need to rewrite your
conclusion.

The White House response to the criticism if GWB was that he wanted to
project an air of calm and being in control in the face of crisis, and
not immediately rush from the room.

I only brought this up to correct the facts. Personally, I probably
would have sat there just like GWB. I watched it live on TV, and it
took a bit of time after the second plane for me to figure out what was
going on. However, I'm not the President, and I don't have a direct
line to the FAA, who had a better idea of what was happening.

Then we have Kerry who sat in a stupor for 40 minutes after he was
informed.

Pretty easy choice to me

Maybe not as easy, with the correct sequence of events.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what trickle down means.



Well, then, correct the misunderstanding. If it is so "fundamental" then is
should be trivial to correct.

Very simple. The more money you let all people have the more money that
can ciruclate in the economy. The more you have the more that trickles
down. For example 4 years ago I put an addition on my house for $55K.
If I don't have access to that money the contractor I hired doesn't get
the job. He makes a certain amount of profit, now he can trickle down
some of his money to somebody else by spending his money on something
that is important to him. The more money you have to spend the better
the economy will be.