So, You Want My Vote....

[DraconisRex]

Dear Mr. Politician:

Now that the Elections are over, I can tell you a little bit about how to get my vote.

In the past few months, I've heard more mud-slinging on the radio than I've heard songs, or good ideas.

Some marketing advice -- In advertising products, it's generally considered bad form to directly attack your competition. The objective is to sell your product based on its merits, what it will do for its users, and why the purchaser would should buy it. If you were Burger King, you would be ill-advised to advertise that eating a Whopper won't make you as sick as eating a Big Mac. But you guys haven't learned that lesson yet.

Good taste is a another thing ÔÇô if you are trying to sell a product or service, it needs to be done tastefully. The Democrats having a political rally and Republican-bashing contest at Wellstone's funeral was perhaps the most tasteless thing I've ever seen. You don't use the death of a colleague to gain votes. To me, that's party genocide, and questions the participants' upbringing.

Now, I keep seeing some of you guys ÔÇ£pull out the race cardÔÇØ and using what your opponent's views will do to the voters' children. Both of these attacks are idiotic. This is the 21st Century; all Americans, regardless of color, have the same rights. This country is owned by the people ÔÇô if a politician does something that will harm our children, then we, as responsible owners of this corporation, can have the laws changed by our votes. Apparently, some of you Candidates have forgotten this, or don't want to put too much emphasis on the fact that ÔÇ£We the PeopleÔÇØ own you.....

I'm not a Party member, because I don't believe in overly-sensitive ÔÇ£political correctnessÔÇØ or ÔÇ£Hyphenated Americans.ÔÇØ To be politically-correct, you have to believe that people that don't come from white backgrounds need to have a hyphen in their American name, such as American-Indian, African-American, Japanese-American, or whatever. I consider a hyphen in one's American name as saying that they are sub-standard. That is a boldface lie, because you're either an American, or you're not!

Every American, except for Indians, is an immigrant to this country. Blacks are pretty much the only people that didn't come here by choice. What the white man did to both the African slaves and the Indians was very bad, but that was at least 100 years ago ÔÇô which generation of taxpayer will finally atone for the actions of their forbears? (Of course, the IRS was founded to pay for World War II ÔÇô when will that be paid for again???)

Aw, but the political machinery works like this ÔÇô every government office that makes it past the first 72-hours is more or less permanent. It's like a cancer ÔÇô the body (as in The People) think that any growth is good, but if the cancer spreads to the wrong places, the body will die. The government, regardless of what you have been taught, is our employees, spending our money. We, as share-holders, don't need our corporate employees spending 40% of our money before we ever see it. Over-taxation reduces what we can spend on other things, which in turn reduces our ability to compete with other nations in the world market.

Responsible citizens with smaller government is the key. Corporations have learned that down-sizing increases profits, which lowers prices, and increases sales. However, all of this starts on the home-front. It's up to people at home to start changing their ways and voting to change their government.

Instead of shelling out billions of dollars a year on welfare, why not temporarily shell out just a little extra to train those that can work to do so, and further reduce the welfare rolls? (It's a vicious cycle ÔÇô if someone can't earn enough money, they qualify for welfare. If they can't get trained, they continue to qualify. It's time to end that cycle.) Set up child-care for qualified parents so that they can work. This would be cheaper, by far, than paying for food stamps, welfare, etcetera. The United States is not Communistic, but you couldn't tell it by me looking at The Projects.

We need to take education away from the government. Current statistics show that private education costs about half what the US is paying to teach our kids. Take that money and pay it to the private schools. Statistics also show that privately-taught students have scholastic scores 35 to 60 percent higher than pubic schools. (Cheaper, with better results... You'll never catch a Congressman voting that in!!!)

It works like this -- you want to be a manager working for me? Do everything you can to reduce my expendatures, or I will replace you. Get government, in general, out of my life, and out of my affairs. To be a free country, that also means free of needless regulation that reduces the ability of the people to be free.

Sell me on what you can do, what you think is needed to better this country, how much money I'll have in my pocket at the end of the year, and what it will cost to accomplish this. If I like what you have to say better than your competition, I'll vote for you. But, if you slander the competition in these efforts, you lose my vote. It's unprofessional and unethical. And, I, as a share-holder in this corporation, won't hire unprofessional and unethical employees. I'd rather hire an employee with the wrong ideas, and retrain him (by my votes), than hire anyone whose values are already corrupted.

If you can't do these simple things, don't bother applying for the position.

[Guest $iLk]

I voted Libertarian because of all the mudslinging.

[Guest]

I voted Republican, voting independent was throwing away my vote.

The Dem's did as much mudslinging as they could and it just went off, the republicans wore teflon this election.

Things are gonna get done now, Daschle can't sit on the homeland security bill or the judge appointments or anything else.

We are actually going to get REAL judges that will look at the constitution as it is written, instead of some view that it is a living breathing document. Sorry guys it isn't and it ain't.

We won in a landslide and I expect the Dem's to implode in the next few years.

Florida governorship was the race to watch, Jeb Bush won his reelection, and his opponent has MORE money, had Gore and Clinton campaigning for him, etc etc ad nauseum. Bush beat him by almost 20 points. Unheard of, the dems' are reeling so hard right now that it is unreal.

WE control the senate, WE control the House, WE control the whitehouse. It is now time for the destruction of the liberal view of America, and time for america to get backs to it's roots.

Mainly, the true meaning of the US constitution. It is PAST time.

Socialism has taken a HUGE hit, and it is about time!!!

[Kevin Trotter]

Campaign reform,Big time. Lets figure a way for qualified candidates who meet certain standards( requisite number of signatures of registered voters ,meeting the requirements of the office etc...) to get the same amount of air time on TV and radio (Americans who choose to can donate money to pay for the air time and networks can reduce their ad-rate don't worry they can make it up by selling more shit we don't need or having companies donate to a general election fund) no money would come from taxes or special interests.

Every candidate that qualifies gets the same amount of air time and agrees to a number of debates televised by the networks (who can in turn charge companies that advertise during the debates)

on POLICY ISSUES! These debates could actually follow the format of a forensic debate not the current form that has lowered expectations so much that unless someone passes out on stage you have no idea who won.

I know this is far fetched but it would even the playing field and insure money would not be the determining factor in electing our leaders. This is simply getting out of hand. The Governers race in Texas costed a whopping 100 million dollars. The Democratic candidate spent 70 Million dollars of his own money in the most overt attempt to buy an election since Ross Perot. Fortunately he lost the election but that is more the exception than the rule.

Ideas and solutions should drive our political process. Not dollars and cents.

[Kevin Trotter]

We control the vertical , we control the horizontal we can...oh wait that's the Outer Limits...not reality. Contrary to what Jag thinks yesterday was the best thing that happened to the Democratic party in years!

Hopefully Daschle and Gephardt will move aside and take their docile mealy mouthed lapdog approach to progressive politics with them. I respect leadership which is why I chuckle when people hold Dubya up as a template. A more accurate template is Ronald Reagan who breathed life into conservative politics in this country after years of the stagnant approach the party had taken in pursuing moderate MOR style of rich Goldwater type conservatism. They were startlingly similar to todays Democratic leadership, too busy trying not to offend people who were diametrically opposed to thier philosophy and afarid to stake their claims to their core beliefs.

Reagan came out and said exactly what he believed and be damned to those on the left who disagreed since he knew they would regardless.

He drew lines in the philosophical sand that made fringe and centrist democrats see their best interest would be served in his new party and was not afraid to say what he didn't believe.

Reagan made no effort to be inclusive to minority groups who he knew disagreed with his politics and didn't worry about it because he knew his constituency was behind him and thathe wouldn't be beholding to groups that didn't share his views

What happened yesterday has to galvanize the Dems to stake thier claim , to say what our core beliefs are and to reach out those who drifted away from the party because they could scarcely tell them apart from the other guys.

Lastly Jag we aint goin no where! There will aways be Liberals and Conservatives as long as the world keeps spinning. All things in cycles and the people have spoken and the mandate is there for a conservative agenda. Let's see what your boy can do with it.

[GREG MILLER]

Yep, I did my duty and voted Repulican, but I have to say Rendell and Fisher were both slinging the mud, and I really did care for either of them. What the city of Pittsburgh really needs is to get Murphy out of office. That little puke has given corporate wellfare and bribed any business to locate a store downtown. Yea, well now he's complaining that Pittsburgh is growing, but the tax base is shrinking, because he now can't collect taxes from certain businesses downtown. (Lazarus, Lloyd and Taylor, etc...) Sorry Tom, that's NOT my problem, go cry me a river!!!

On a lighter note, this has to be the Election Quote of the year:

quote:

---

"The biggest obstacle was that he couldn't campaign, Other people had to do it for him."

Tish Traficant, former congressman James Traficant's wife

---

Here is the whole Traficant story.

[ 11-06-2002, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Greg Miller ]

[Kevin Trotter]

He is a squirrelly little puke isn't he? What I remember most about him was his state house run a few years back where he switched parties (Dem-to Repub) after he got shellacked in the primary. I disagree with the politics of the Republican party but respect them for their unabashed "Republicanism" but I despise spineless little jerks that play both ends against the middle just to get elected. What a twerp!

[DraconisRex]

Government has this bad attribute called "Spend." They think, "If we have a surplus, we're supposed to spend it." I don't know about you, but if I bought something at the store at $17, but hadn't used it yet, and found the same thing at another store for $12, you can bet I would be buying the lower-priced item and returning the higher-priced one.

In good times, government just spends away, never thinking that 2-years down the road we just might need that extra money. They should refund to the people any monies they didn't use for the reasons we voted on. Period. Hanging onto it, and using it for whatever purposes they want to is called "theft" -- if I were to personally do the same thing to a victum, I would be called "prisoner."

Spending within your means is yet another subject. If I write a dishonored check for $20 that I don't cover, the District Attorney's Office will be pressing charges against me for "Theft by Check." But Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has been issuing bad checks for Billons of Dollars for the past 50-years. The debt has exceeded One Trillion Dollars, which is over $3,700 for every man, woman, and child legally living in this country. Assuming the averages of 2.5 people per household, they've racked up your debt to over $9,000 just for your family.

In my experience, that's called "Bad Management." However, as I said in my original post, retraining starts at home. Let Congress know exactly what you want them to do, what you will tolerate, and how they are to go about pleasing you. As a share-holder, you have to keep a close eye on the management. That's why voters must be responsible, as they are the owners, and are at-fault if there is a long-term problem.

I would start by reworking the education system, and teaching how rights, privilieges, and responsibilites go hand-in-hand. You cannot manage a company without being responsible for your own actions, and answerable to someone. The same thing applies to us, as share-holders in the greatest nation on Earth.

The legal system needs a serious look-over by the people, starting with Federal laws that only help certain people or special-interest-groups. That type of thing is strictly in the powers of the States, and shouldn't be handled on a Federal level. Federal laws that do not fairly apply to everyone should, quite simply, not exist, and be made null and void.

At no time should the Welfare issue be handled by the Feds. A friend of mine once told me, in reference to the "War on Drugs," that they should legalize them, and let the Feds run it for a few weeks -- it would then be bankrupt, and no longer a problem. History has taught us that this is true of the welfare system, in general.

As a Free Enterprise society, there is no reason that some companies couldn't help support getting the homeless homes, jobs, etc. We are the richest nation on Earth, and it is not acceptable that any man, woman, or child should go hungry, or be without a place to live. We could hanlde this like the old farmers did -- if they could use someone with the right skills, or be trainable, they'd set them up under implied contract for services, and take care of their actual needs, and give them a little spending money.

Businesses need to quit considering the homeless an assault on their income -- any apparent liabilty that you can change into an asset increases profits. Money spend on those in-need is tax-deductable -- use whatever assets you can to help society (and help improve your bottom line.)

There are risks involved in every venture, but our greatest threat actually comes from the "United States of Europe." Most of those nations are pulling away from us as they improve their own systems. The US only has a few dozen actual allies -- the rest of the world wouldn't mind if we fell off the face of the globe.

Improvement starts at home, folks. We cannot continue policing an ungrateful planet without something being shown as a Return on Investment. If the United Nations wishes to be a world power, it needs to equally start acting like one, or be abolished. If I were President, I'd use all my resources to give them a deadline on its own resolutions, and if they failed only one, we'd be out of the UN. Nothing to discuss here.

While the Middle East may start the next World War, understand that a few thousand warheads would make the entire area become quiet and serene. They would quit fighting over a piece of dirt I wouldn't give you 5 cents for, and stop being a threat to the rest of the world. And, finally, the relious argument would stop assaulting my ears, which don't care if God's name is Yaweh or Allah. I know that the Buddhists would be happy if that argument was settled.

I don't want war. I want peace. If the rest of the world shared my views, we'd have a happy place indeed. At the same time, I believe in justice. If we had a nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb, or other weapons of mass destruction used on one of our cities, then whoever did it would be wiped off the face of the Earth. When our allies complained, "What are we supposed to do?" My advice: "Duck."

[Charles Lindsey]

Our democratic governor has recruited auto plants into our state and done some other good things. But he also awarded a lot of illegal no bid contracts. He fixed it (so his campaign said but the other guy's campaign never disputed) and actually ran on issues. At least he started to before the mudslinging.

The republican just ran on the "It's time for a change" spiel without saying anything at all about the issues.

We are now Florida with just a few thousand vote different and one county changed their vote counts. Now we don't know who won yet.

"You" (they) can gloat a bit but please don't call it a mandate. I think there were a lot of close races and the republicans won but it certainly isn't a mandate.

Yeah, now the republicans control all three parts. Well, almost. There's a runoff out there and one other recount I think. That's gonna be interesting if they do get control. Bush is gonna get anything he wants.

That homeland security dept sorta scares me. I think it has the potential to become too big for it's britches much like the IRS.

I'd like a balanced budget amendment. Sadly I think there will never be another amendment to the constitution. Too hard to get it done. Much easier just to federally legislate it. But I could go for that so long as it gets done.

It isn't really a surplus until all the federal debts are gone. But let's say we are running a "surplus". I have seen political commentary that the govt should take just enough to run and give the rest back. I can agree with that but I can be flexible too. Let's say we can have something reasonable like 5% - 15% surplus and it goes into a hedge fund for deficit years. It would balance over the long term and if it ever grew too big it could then be refunded.

Draconis has some other good points but that was about all I wanted to commment on.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

It isn't really a surplus until all the federal debts are gone. But let's say we are running a "surplus". I have seen political commentary that the govt should take just enough to run and give the rest back. I can agree with that but I can be flexible too. Let's say we can have something reasonable like 5% - 15% surplus and it goes into a hedge fund for deficit years. It would balance over the long term and if it ever grew too big it could then be refunded.

---

You're forgetting something. If I put money in the bank or use it for investments, I can get a return on investments. The government, on the other hand, just holds onto it "for a rainy day," and I make no money from that effort. Since the cost of living tends to increase, and the cost of paying the current deficit is considerably higher than any interest they may earn from a temporary surplus, then it's still a negative number. I call that a Lose-Lose Proposition....

Once they have the budget actually in control, and it looks like it's going to stay that way, then the extra funds they hold onto will earn a little money, which can be used to pay future bills, and keep our taxes lower. That is a much better proposition than paying, and repaying it for several years thereafter....

[Guest]

I don't know if you guys realize this or not, but Bush is now the most powerful president of the last 40 years.

Reagan never was this powerful.

Also, there is a trial balloon being launched by the Whitehouse to scrap the current tax system and go to a sales or consumption tax. We'll see where it goes.

Bush is a conservative, I see Social security privatized, destruction of Saddam, and the US economy going through the roof. Among MANY other things.

Should be fun to watch.

The adults are in charge and the children are being punished, gotta LOVE IT!!!

[Charles Lindsey]

I'm very flexible on this. The govt could put it in the bank too and earn interest. Republicans oughta love that idea! It would have to be self insured or something so a crash wouldn't take it out but it could work. I don't have all the answers but something could work.

quote:

---

I don't know if you guys realize this or not, but Bush is now the most powerful president of the last 40 years.

---

I realize it. It's scary. I think it's better when there are checks and balances. Even if it is just along party lines.

I could almost go for a federal sales tax but I'd like to see some figures on what it would generate. But you'd have to close the loopholes for big business so that they would pay their fair share. Then prices would rise accordingly. Ughhh.

If by privatizing Social Security you mean completely turning it over to a private corp no way. The govt started it they should finish it. And it ought to be sacrosanct. The govt should not be able to dip into it for whatever reason.

If however, you mean allowing participants to decide where the SSA should shunt our own money as investments I can almost agree with that. I have something similiar in a deferred compensation plan. They already deduct my check for pension but I can opt (and I did) to put more money in a deferred compensation plan. It's taken out pretax (which is nice and happened during Clinton so there;) ) and I have about 30 stock funds (which are still tanking BTW) or about six bond funds.

[Charles Lindsey]

Well phooey, somehow I tabbed over to the reply button and when I went to add a space to my sentence it posted. Oh well.

Anyway...

I'll leave Saddam in the other thread.

I hope the economy doesn't go through the roof. We just went through that with the Internet bubble.

I agree it will be interesting.

quote:

---

The adults are in charge and the children are being punished, gotta LOVE IT!!!

---

Ok, I was mistaken. You don't have to gloat that much.

[Rosko]

Its great here in Australia...you don't have to be past you're sexual prime to be a major political member!!

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Socialism has taken a HUGE hit, and it is about time!!!

---

The Democratic Party is not socialist. It's not even remotely left-wing either. It just appeals to a different sector of big business and projects a carrot over stick approach in its public image.

It's actually quite similar to the major parties in Australia. Our Republican equivalent is the Liberal Party (the real definition of liberalism, not the American 'big government' stereotype), which is currently in power under John Howard. The Democratic equivalent is the ALP (Australian Labor Party). There are some differences in the way they run and stuff, but they essentially have the same political allegiances.

Neither of these parties are left-wing.

quote:

---

Its great here in Australia...you don't have to be past you're sexual prime to be a major political member!!

---

True, but depending on the side you're on, you have to be twice as dirty, even in the minor political arenas.

I recently ran for and won a position in a university student election with a victorious left-wing group (one of two major groups in the election, the other was right-wing). All throughout the election period, the right-wing group's campaign consisted of incoherent vote-bribing policies, personal attacks, and manipulation of prejudices. While we were talking to and debating with students about our platform, the other side was forming wolf packs around students and herding them towards the voting booth, making sure that only their leaflets were within reach.

This is a common occurrence among right-wing groups during university elections, because these elections are the proving grounds for future status in the major parties of Australian government. If they don't win at uni, their reputation within the Young Liberals or the Young ALP is tarnished, hence they will do anything to get the votes.

[ 11-06-2002, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Lotharr]

I voted Green.

I stood with our sign supporting one of our candidates from open to close.....even after it started to rain.....soaking wet in forty degree temperature never felt better.

I had the good fortune of sharing the voting entrance area with a "Linconian Republican" for part of the day. (He was smart enough to bring a chair....of course he was seventy). We didn't agree on much...but we did agree that big business is destroying this country. He spoke at length of America...in terms of "The Republic"....it was an honor and it was disturbing. He knew he had been betrayed but wouldnÔÇÖt for a moment, consider yielding to despair.....he held his Republican sign high on his cane every time a car came by....

The people are what make a country great....not its weapons or GDP.....maybe one day we will realize this.

Having either major party in solid control is good thing. Both will prove to be ineffective. Both parties live in a past that has yet to deal with the future in a meaningful and realistic way...both are bought and sold...both are not supported by the majority of Americans.

I also voted for the libertarian running for governor.maybe next time they will be more successful.

[ 11-07-2002, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest Grayfox]

i missed being qualified to register here by a single day... and i really busted my hump to learn about the major candidates (gov, senators etc..). oh well theres the next election.

a democrat won the governor position... so instead of the money being equally distributed throughout the state, it will be tossed into chicago while the rest of us pretty much fend for ourselves.

i would have voted republican... only time i voted green was during the presidential election when i voted for ralph nader... he definitely seemed to have his stuff squared away.

[DraconisRex]

Chavik:

quote:

---

I'm very flexible on this. The govt could put it in the bank too and earn interest. Republicans oughta love that idea! [big Grin] It would have to be self insured or something so a crash wouldn't take it out but it could work. I don't have all the answers but something could work.

---

Like I said before, until they get rid of the deficit, that's throwing money out the door. If you're paying 3% on a trillion dollar debt, and somewhere you have a billion dollar surplus, even if it's paying 9%, you still gotta pay the interest on the other 999 billion dollars. That's definitely in the red. Once they get the budget balanced, and then they want to hold onto extra funds earning interest, then we can talk with them about it.

quote:

---

I could almost go for a federal sales tax but I'd like to see some figures on what it would generate. But you'd have to close the loopholes for big business so that they would pay their fair share. Then prices would rise accordingly. Ughhh.

---

If they had a 5% flat federal sales tax coast-to-coast, and eliminated state sales tax, that would be a tax savings to the people in most cases. But most of that money would have to go directly to the states, and be regulated on what the states could spend it on. If we eliminated the 70% of the federal government that is pure waste, it would reduce taxes by far. Money in the people's pocket is all the people care about. Our Senators and Representatives on both federal and state levels should realize they are our managers, and think before they act.

quote:

---

If by privatizing Social Security you mean completely turning it over to a private corp no way. The govt started it they should finish it. And it ought to be sacrosanct. The govt should not be able to dip into it for whatever reason.

---

I'd let the government run Social Security if there were a law stating that that money could not be touched, and anyone who did would be held criminally accountable to the people. History has taught us that Congress will do what Congress wants to, but Social Security strictly belongs to the people. That's a retirement account -- From my vantage point, what politicians have done in the past is nothing short of treason....

Based on Enron and other 'fun' corporations, we can't trust big business to run it either. It seems a Swiss bank is the only company we can trust these days. But I'd not trust the funds out of country, for obvious reasons.

The only way that would work is if the government set up a private bank, entrusted with running Social Security, in which Congress had no power to do anything with except set the rate at which SS was collected. It would also have to be stated that courts (which have proven themselves to ignore basic democracy, which is why you can't have prayer or pledges of allegience in schools) would have no impact on that bank either. This would need to be done with an unvoidable Amendment.

Congress would have to put enough excess funds into it to offset what they have spent in the past, to make it viable. All funds collected from SS withholdings would have to be directly deposited into the bank, and investments of the bank would have to be coordinated by the Treasury Dept. Other than that, it would not exist as far as the government is concerned. The only ones who this bank would listen to are their customers: The Citizens of the United States of America.

Now, if an individual could not resolve a problem with this bank, they could sue it, of course. However, at that level of banking, I don't believe any court level except the US Supreme Court should be permitted to hear the case, and that would be after the Treasury Dept. had audited the bank for any alleged transgressions or errors. 80% of the time, going this route, it should be resolved before it gets to court. I'd put a minimum requirement of $5,000 for the Supreme Court to accept the case; anything less than that could be settled by private arbitration council.

[Kevin Trotter]

Bush is potentially the most powerful president.

It remains to be seen whether or not he can lift and wield the power he has been given and whether or not he will make the kind mark Reagan did. I still believe absent 9-11 Dubya was a one term president waiting to happen.

Things always have a way of balancing out. If he moves too far to the right expect the moderate in his party to respond accordingly. This whole phenomenon was a function of the seemingly endless

war on terrorism ; it made him bullet proof cause people ignored the issues they were reaaly concerned with. That and the ineptitude of democratic leadership.

It's going to be interesting , I mean the Repub's were pretty successful as a minority party during Clinton's administration , let see what some fresh blood can do since Gephardt is gone.

It's like the old Chinese curse," May you live in interesting times" Ooops .. that was a political post...but this is really my last one...really.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

Bush is potentially the most powerful president.

It's going to be interesting , I mean the Repub's were pretty successful as a minority party during Clinton's administration , let see what some fresh blood can do since Gephardt is gone.

It's like the old Chinese curse," May you live in interesting times" Ooops .. that was a political post...but this is really my last one...really.

---

The Democrats screwed up with that Wellstone fiasco....

To the Democratic Leaders: You don't ask vote for my vote, then insult the purpose of a funeral, then expect me to vote for you. You get elected first, then do something so utterly unethical and just plain wrong, so that We the People can vote you out. Always wait until after you're elected to do something stupid.

Everyone's saying how powerful Bush is. He's only as powerful as Congress, the "Several States," and The People let him be. There's still a series of checks-and-balances (that barely work) to keep him on a leash. Still, it's what we got working.

The Democrats were focusing so hard on anti-war with Iraq, that I don't believe many of them realized the full potential of what a single 50 Kilo-Ton atomic bomb could do to a major city. Yeah, it only wipes out a few miles of downtown New York City, but then you have fallout, radiation problems for decades, and it would mess up the weather patterns on the East Coast for several years (look at what Mount St. Helens did to us for 8 years.)

Let's say New York City, Los Angeles, and Denver were all hit, destroying basically just the cities. Fallout from the blasts could still affect people all over the Western Hemisphere, because weather doesn't just stop for the heck of it. Cancer would be the most common side-effect, but there are others.

As for "interesting times," we're already there.... (Until I was 30, I really didn't understand that phrase, although I learned it at a fairly early age. My life got very interesting from 23 to 36, and I don't want a repeat!)

[GREG MILLER]

Yep, you are so right. They took the sacred event of Funeral, and turned into a rallying party. I'd be PISSED AS ALL HELL if that was my funeral.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Miller:

Yep, you are so right. They took the sacred event of Funeral, and turned into a rallying party. I'd be PISSED AS ALL HELL if that was my funeral.

---

I rather doubt that, Sir, unless you're Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and able to attend your own funeral...

Still, if I were a family member, and they pulled that stunt, I'd let them finish their foolishness, and then sue the ever-loving hell out of them. That is a disgrace, and every politician and important person who participated in that crap owes that family big-time!

I got to thinking about it, and I think G. Gordon Liddy said it cost the American Taxpayer about $130 thousand dollars just for the plane tickets in that fiasco. Since there were several politicians with Secret Service personnel as their shadows, plus whatever else it cost us, it might have reached the $1 Million dollar mark. Okay, so when do I get my refund???

[Charles Lindsey]

You mentioned negative numbers earlier. Would you rather have negative 10 or negative 20?

quote:

---

Like I said before, until they get rid of the deficit, that's throwing money out the door.

---

I'll agree with you then continue to argue against it. You also used a personal analogy. Well, every self help/ money management thing I have have seen says pay off your debts first. Ok fine that's great. But then they also tell you to have about three months income saved up for persaonal disaster. So whatcha gonna do now? Pay off your debt and risk a personal disaster really wiping you out or knocking you back to square one or do you do both at once? Work hard to pay off debt but also save as much as possible? I htink yes and that's why I am

[Charles Lindsey]

willing to allow a bit of both.

THat's twice now I've done this. Ughhhh.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

You mentioned negative numbers earlier. Would you rather have negative 10 or negative 20?

---

When you're in debt, someone else owns something of your's that is very precious -- your captial. In this case, it's our Capitol. Banks own what is our's, be it $10 or $10 Trillion. Would be a bit hard to collect, thanks to the sovergnty, but...

quote:

---

I'll agree with you then continue to argue against it. [Wink] You also used a personal analogy. Well, every self help/ money management thing I have have seen says pay off your debts first. Ok fine that's great. But then they also tell you to have about three months income saved up for persaonal disaster. So whatcha gonna do now? Pay off your debt and risk a personal disaster really wiping you out or knocking you back to square one or do you do both at once? Work hard to pay off debt but also save as much as possible? I htink yes and that's why I am willing to allow a bit of both.

---

I agree with the idea that the government should have a mild surplus. But that should be on a level-basis, meaning that the States need to start paying what is their expense only, instead of the Feds having to be involved in a lot of personal crap. The Federal Government was never meant to become the overwhelming monster it has become, and needs to quit paying every whine-bag that comes to see it.... There are limits to what we should have to pay.

Again, until they get the debt paid-off, it makes no sense for them to be in control of excess revenue, since it doesn't exist at all at this point. If you issue more money than you have capital, that's called debt. When you sign the order for that debt, it's called a "hot check." If I did that (especially for how much $$$ we're talking here,) I'd be Bubba's girlfriend. No thanks!

I don't feel that our Representatives should be able to do that without prosecution, just like any other corporation. As they prosecute those corrupt corporations, I find myself thinking about a kettle calling a pot black....