Leaving the community

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m

When are we going to remember the line about 'separation of church and
state'.

Where is that line found?

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.

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.

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

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?

snip
--
Frank....H

Frank wrote:

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

All he has to do is contribute more. He can start with giving away the
money he saved in tax cuts to a worthy charity. For my own part, I pay
enough in taxes and anybody - wealthy or not - saying I should pay more is
in for a bitter discussion.

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 a bit difficult to believe
that the wealthiest individual in the US Congress is "looking out for the
common man". I'm not convinced he knows what the "common man's experience"
really is. What we need in Congress is more "common men" to truly look out
for "the common man".

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

"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:
[...deletia...]
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".


Actually, the Blues I've seen seem to say "You have so much, give me some!"

Actually, the Blues I've seen seem to say "You have so much, give me
some!"

You've put your finger on the reason the Democrats fail.

The "Blues" that believe in *taking* far outnumber the "Blues" that believe
in "We have so much, we should try to make life better for the less
fortunate".

Worse, the ones who seem to believe the latter are too often disingenuous,
oftentimes benefiting from taking advantage of the one who believe the
former.

Government employees -- who overwhelmingly vote Democrat -- fit into this
realm.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"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