An Olive Branch

kontiki wrote in message ...

GW's lack of vetoing any spending bills in 4 years was frustrating to
me and I will not be alone in makeing sure he knows I expect him to do
that in the next 4.

Why would he listen now?


The market doesn't like big spenders.... but it
it is more distasteful of John Kerry's promises to not only spend more
but tax more.

So you are saying you prefer a borrow and spend policy to a tax and
spend policy? I thought fiscal responsibilty was a conservative
ideal?

tb

"Allen" wrote:

If it were not for the
electoral college the U.S. would be governed by the residents of large
cities and the rural population (who tend to be more conservative) would
have no say in the law-making process.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message


that's dictatorship of the majority.


Dictatorship by the majority. I'm not sure what that means. Here in the
U.S. we have a legislative process to create new laws. (Although lately we
have had some judicial benches trying to create new laws).

Allen

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:10:41 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Spdid.361694$D%.219002@attbi_s51...
Oh well. Based on politicos' jabber today, our little group lasted about
as
long as the larger politic in seeking common ground.

Ah, well. T'was ever thus. The same thing is going on over on the
Cherokee Chat.

According to CNN, the 1964 Goldwater vs Johnson election campaign made
this election look like some sort of a grade-school spat. Yet, somehow,
the country overcame the divisiveness and bitter enmity to grow and
prosper. (Of course, it "grew" into the 60s, which is hardly something
we'd like to repeat...)


IIRC,

The capper to that campaign season was an add by Johnson which showed a
little girl serenely picking flowers who gets imolated by a nuclear
detonation. It was/is quite jarring.

The idea being (if it isn't already obvious...) that voting for Goldwater
would bring about the end of the world.

I've seen this referred to in some circles as the dirtiest political add
ever produced.
Jay, I remember that ad. I don't want to continue to fuel this
partisan discussion because, as an American, I respect the right for
both sides to have their views and not be considered idiots for not
agreeing with the other side. That being said, I haven't experienced
anything remotely similar to that ad until Cheyney said (or at least
strongly implied) that if Kerry were elected we would be attacked
again. Granted, that's not exactly the same as the end of the world,
but it does show that the same kind of "anything goes" politics still
exists.
Rich Russell

In article ,
Philip Sondericker wrote:

myself actually hopeful for the future. With Republicans enjoying an
unprecedented mandate, controlling the White House, having substantial
majorities in both Houses of Congress, and even an advantage in
Governorships and state legislatures, I'm looking forward to the
following:

1. Fiscal responsibility
2. Balanced budgets
3. Smaller and less intrusive government
4. Greater personal liberties
5. A strong and all-volunteer military
6. Strong alliances and respect around the world

All of the above are, of course, the bedrock philosophy of the
Republican
party. Or so I've been told my whole life. I can hardly wait for all of
it
to happen.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

Re-read this post 3 times, and I still, seriously, can't decide if it's
really intended to be serious or sarcasm -- particular items 3 and 4
(with the Religious Right in the ascendancy).

Scary either way, I guess.

"Religious Right in the ascendancy" did you get that from your Tarot cards
or your astrologer?

LOL

Allen

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

If it were not for the
electoral college the U.S. would be governed by the residents of large
cities and the rural population (who tend to be more conservative) would
have no say in the law-making process.


that's dictatorship of the majority.


Democracy is a dictatorship by the majority.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Allen" wrote:

Dictatorship by the majority. I'm not sure what that means.


maybe democracy?

Here in the
U.S. we have a legislative process to create new laws. (Although lately
we
have had some judicial benches trying to create new laws).


and you decide for new laws with a game of scrabble or what?
na, you (congress, whoever) vote and the majority wins.


So you are calling the U.S. a dictatorship?

"Religious Right in the ascendancy" did you get that from your Tarot
cards
or your astrologer?

Yeah, I was wondering about myself.

I'm a "conservative" and mostly "Republican" -- but I'm no church-goer, and
I don't see any evidence of the "Religious Right" in the Republican Party --
at least not in these parts.

I think the "Religious Right" is a creation of the media. They find some
idiot standing on a soap box, spouting off about "God's will," stick a
camera and a microphone in his face, and proclaim him to be the "new face of
the Republican Party!"

Are there religious people in the Republican Party? Sure! And there's a
whole bunch of 'em in the Democratic Party, too.

America is a religious place...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In my opinion being dyslexic goes a LONG way towards explaining his
lack of reading ability and difficulty with the english language. For
dyslexics, reading is especially difficult, it's "hard work" ;-).

As always, Corky, your observations are refreshing and spot on. This DOES
make sense.

And some of the smartest people I've met have been dyslexic -- which has
always been a hard thing for this old English major to understand.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

So you are calling the U.S. a dictatorship?


huu? neither the way you might interpret my statement nor otherwise. isn't
the
US a republic (and not a democracy)?


Yes.



(hm, it is a democratic republic, isn't it?)


What's a "democratic republic"?

Corky Scott wrote:

Gail Sheehy wrote an article about Bush for Vanity Fair during his
first run to the presidency. In the article (among several other
things) she explored the possibility that Bush was dyslexic.

The Atlantic ran an article by James Fallows in the July/August issue. In it he
compared the debating styles of Bush and Kerry. As research, he watched hours of
videos of old debates. He was amazed at the debate between Bush and Ann Richards.

"This Bush was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated
sentences and brought them to the correct grammatical conclusions. ... More striking,
he did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent
mangled new ones."

He continues later -- "I have read and listened to speculations that there must be
some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech - a learning
disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder that makes him so
uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is
that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate."

Two theories quoted in the article were that 1) this is a facade that Bush has
adopted and 2) that the run for the presidency has simply overwhelmed him. Between
those two, I would tend to believe the first. The problem I have with the second
theory is that Bush's confidence should have been restored after years in the White
House.

During the following months, one physician wrote in to the Atlantic to point out that
the only organic condition that would cause this sort of change of which he was aware
is pre-senile dementia.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.