Leaving the community

"Frank" wrote in message

In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

Nothing is preventing him from paying more, if that's what he wants. I
recommend he start by giving more money to charities.

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I
will never understand why this was seen as such a negative.

I don't begrudge his wealth at all. I do find it difficult to believe that
*the* richest man in the US Congress is looking out for "the common man." I
doubt he really understands the "common man's" experience. What we need is
more "common men" in Congress looking out for the "common man."

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message

In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

Nothing is preventing him from paying more, if that's what he wants. I
recommend he start by giving more money to charities.

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I
will never understand why this was seen as such a negative.

I don't begrudge his wealth at all. I do find it difficult to believe
that
*the* richest man in the US Congress is looking out for "the common man."
I
doubt he really understands the "common man's" experience. What we need
is more "common men" in Congress looking out for the "common man."


I agree that would be preferable. However our current system all but
precludes that from happening.

How much money someone has does not determine if he will serve the people
well or not. In our system (as currently implemented) wealth does allow for
the possibility for one to forego the usual role of whore to lobbyists.


--
Frank....H

After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

snip
--
Frank....H

With unbridled power. And if that doesn't frighten you then what will? Until
the democrats get out of the business of promoting a nanny state they
probably will stay out of power.

I think an interesting question is why the majority of major urban areas are
"blue" and the remainder of the country is "red". Any thoughts? Are the
people in the "blue" areas: Smarter? More Dependent? More Caring?
Need more services?

Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

Howard Nelson wrote:

After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

snip
--
Frank....H

With unbridled power. And if that doesn't frighten you then what will?
Until the democrats get out of the business of promoting a nanny state
they probably will stay out of power.

I think an interesting question is why the majority of major urban areas
are "blue" and the remainder of the country is "red". Any thoughts? Are
the
people in the "blue" areas: Smarter? More Dependent? More Caring?
Need more services?

Howard


Not smarter but more "worldly". I'm not trying to insult anyone here. Some
of my closest friends live in rural areas. Some of those have never
traveled more that 100 miles from home. They see things very differently
than their neighbor whose job takes him all over the country (and once in a
while overseas).

More caring only in the sense that they see the plight of the poor first
hand and therefore it is more tangible to them. Rural "reds" have been led
to believe that people are poor solely because they are lazy. If they had
to come face to face with the realities they would care just as much.

Sometimes more services are needed to compensate for problems unique to
urban life. For the disadvantaged I suppose this can translate into 'more
dependent.

The biggest difference I see today is in attitude. "Reds" seem to have one
of "I've got mine, you get yours" while the "blues" is more like "We have
so much, we should try to make life better for the less fortunate".

--
Frank....H

"Frank" wrote in message ...
John T wrote:

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

snip

Good point,,, you're right Kerry was clearly against tax breaks for
the wealthy, the group that Bush was caught referring to during a
private dinner that was videotaped and to whom he referred to as "My
own people" ---- Got that right, W. Thank goodness there was
someone looking out for the common man (and still is,,,, as a
Senator) as John Kerry.

Sorry, but you lose points on this issue. Kerry, *the* richest person
in
Congress, paid less in 2003 taxes (both in percentage and in raw
dollars)
than Bush (whose net worth is a fraction of Kerry's). Feel free to
Google
for their 2003 tax returns and do the math. While you're at it, notice
the difference in charitable donations, too.

And clearly stated that he was against the tax cuts even though he
benefited
from them. In fact he was, in effect, advocating raising his own taxes.

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I will
never understand why this was seen as such a negative. He came upon it
honorably. More important, it insulates him from some of the special
interest pressure. After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

The same way you bribe a poor man.



snip
--
Frank....H

Dave Stadt wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message ...
John T wrote:

snip

And while we're on the subject of Kerry's (Theresa's) wealth.... I will
never understand why this was seen as such a negative. He came upon it
honorably. More important, it insulates him from some of the special
interest pressure. After all, how do you bribe a wealthy man?

The same way you bribe a poor man.

I wasn't suggesting you couldn't bribe a rich man, just that since he
doesn't need the money as much he will be more inclined to do the right
thing.


--
Frank....H

John T wrote:



Face it: The Democrats have no base outside the urban areas of this country
and their values apparently are out of line with a majority of the voters.
They need to reconsider their platform if they want to appeal to American
voters again.


This is driven home by the red/blue map of the country. But get the map
that is divided by county and not just by state. Compare to the same
map for 2000. Another couple of elections like this and the Democratic
party will cease to exist.

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
The gay population has become the new 'coloreds' - get over your
bigotry. Live and let live.

You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
sickening frequency

Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I were
black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't such a
generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative government.

Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to practice
their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can vote. They can
get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions in the media and
corporate America.

Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's just
they way it is.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin to
human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and
your, intelligence.

--
Jim Fisher

*"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but for
now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
and your, intelligence.

Well put, Jim.

Black Americans are not comfortable with this comparison, as you state. In
fact, NPR recently did a piece on the "black vote" and discovered a larger
than ever percentage of blacks voting Republican, precisely because of this
issue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message . ..

But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes. That's just
they way it is.

It's not "just the way it is". You can feel it is wrong if you want,
but it's not an innate truism that gay people can't get married.

To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin to
human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my, and
your, intelligence.

Why call it sexually aberrant? I agree, that is an affront to your
intelligence.

tb