1
   

Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

 
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:10 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I don't think that's what we were talking about, Larry.


Just responding to you, duck.

What do you want to talk about?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:13 pm
Well, if you don't want to differentiate between a campaign and ideals, then we can talk about world peas.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:19 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, if you don't want to differentiate between a campaign and ideals, then we can talk about world peas.


Hve you ever had Creamed world peas and tuna casserole? Cheap, quick and filling. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:22 pm
...great for a family on a budget. Laughing
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:24 pm
Isn't that "whirlled peas"?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:25 pm
Ooooh, sounds delicious! I could use my blender...
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:41 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, if you don't want to differentiate between a campaign and ideals, then we can talk about world peas.


How does one differentiate between a political campaign and the ideals expressed therein?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:46 pm
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, if you don't want to differentiate between a campaign and ideals, then we can talk about world peas.


How does one differentiate between a political campaign and the ideals expressed therein?

that's a question only Madison avenue can answer, direct it to Karl Rove.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:49 pm
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, if you don't want to differentiate between a campaign and ideals, then we can talk about world peas.


How does one differentiate between a political campaign and the ideals expressed therein?


Which ideals were expressed in the Democratic campaign that you are asserting were rejected wholesale by voters? A stronger America, tax cuts for the middle class, healthcare for all?
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:54 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, if you don't want to differentiate between a campaign and ideals, then we can talk about world peas.


How does one differentiate between a political campaign and the ideals expressed therein?


Which ideals were expressed in the Democratic campaign that you are asserting were rejected wholesale by voters? A stronger America

Never heard that one expressed. To the contrary I heard decisions re: our national interests needed to be subjected to some sort of global test of approval.

tax cuts for the middle class

An empty promise on which Bush has already delivered and plans to make permanent.

healthcare for all?

Yup, that would be one Nanny government entitlement many voted against, IMO.[/[/color]quote]
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:14 pm
Larry, if you're getting you information about the Democratic party from the Republican party then it's no wonder that you see things the way you do. I'm going to leave it at that.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:55 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Larry, if you're getting you information about the Democratic party from the Republican party then it's no wonder that you see things the way you do. I'm going to leave it at that.


O.K., but I get my info from the DNC and the candidates during their campaign. I do not beleive, or at least view with skepticism, what either of the major parties says about the other.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 03:01 pm
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Larry, if you're getting you information about the Democratic party from the Republican party then it's no wonder that you see things the way you do. I'm going to leave it at that.


O.K., but I get my info from the DNC and the candidates during their campaign. I do not beleive, or at least view with skepticism, what either of the major parties says about the other.


Alright, one more and then I really will let this go. You got the information regarding Kerry's healthcare plan from the DNC and you determined that it amounted to a nanny government? Even unbiased sources were very clear that it was not an expansion of government.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 03:03 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Larry, if you're getting you information about the Democratic party from the Republican party then it's no wonder that you see things the way you do. I'm going to leave it at that.


O.K., but I get my info from the DNC and the candidates during their campaign. I do not beleive, or at least view with skepticism, what either of the major parties says about the other.


Alright, one more and then I really will let this go. You got the information regarding Kerry's healthcare plan from the DNC and you determined that it amounted to a nanny government? Even unbiased sources were very clear that it was not an expansion of government.


The government does not now provide healthcare for everyone. How can it do so without expanding government entitlements at taxpayer expense?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 03:09 pm
So you don't know what Kerry's plan was, then?
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 03:11 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
So you don't know what Kerry's plan was, then?


As I recall it was putting everyone under the same system as federal employees where the govenment pays the majority of the insurance premium, no?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 03:20 pm
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
So you don't know what Kerry's plan was, then?


As I recall it was putting everyone under the same system as federal employees where the govenment pays the majority of the insurance premium, no?


Allowing them to buy into it, yes. And it would, of course cost the government to implement it. But is that the same thing as a nanny state? Even Bush was proposing a healthcare plan that would cost the government something. In fact, everything Bush has done has cost the government something. In fact, under Bush the government has grown bigger than ever. I have a hunch that the ideals that you believe the Republican party stands for may not be the ideals that those in power believe it stands for. In fact, if it hasn't already happened, we may find very soon that the Democratic party is the party of smaller government and fiscal conservatism.

But that's just my opinion. You have yours and yours is one that I've heard well defended by many people -- and all the same way. In fact, it used to be my opinion, and it may be my opinion again someday, but I've discovered that all is not as it was told to me.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 04:06 pm
blatham wrote:
DTOM said
Quote:
blatham wrote:
The election was going to be close and the winner unassured.


does this mean that ms. hutchinson actually was worried before she was unworried about the election?

Apologies for a sentence apparently unclear...replace unassured with uncertain. Does that work for you?


hi blatham. your work is usually quite clear. thanks for that.

what i was playing with was in reference to your earlier post where hutchinson was quoted as saying that they were worried when she spoke with your friend. and then to say that they were unworried.

point being that while much was made of kerry's statement that he voted for the 87b before he voted against it ( although nobody pointed out that there were different versions of the bill ) while similarly flip flopping statements by republicans go generally unchecked.

no offense intended in your direction.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 04:17 pm
Duck: My health insurance is with the FEHB plan that Fed employees, retirees and Congressmen have access to.

The total premium for my plan this year is $879.19 per month. My share is $233.02. And that is with an HMO. Fee for service plans are even more.

Quite a government entitlement to lavish on those who have not earned it, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 04:24 pm
Larry434 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
And you go on reading, well, whatever you want, into the election results while maintaining the impenetrable attitude of smug superiority, Larry.

It'll be status quo around here for some time yet.

Cycloptichorn


But the superiority of the message of the GOP over the Dems is evident in the election results.


oh my,yes. it certainly was.

Cheney: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again," the vice president said, "that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States".

"a Bush-Cheney ad showing wolves roaming through the woods, waiting to attack. The ad accuses Kerry "and the liberals in Congress" of voting to cut intelligence operations after "the first terrorist attack on America," a reference to the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

"Weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm," the ad says."

"THE VILLAGES, Fla. (AP) - President Bush is urging Florida seniors to reject what he calls John Kerry's "politics of fear."


so, i guess the superior message was, "be afraid. be very afraid".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.66 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 12:01:04