Have they no shame?

For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election

excerpt:

They are scum... you would only expect this of them... right?

Probably goes for both sides. And no, they have no shame. "On to glory" :rolleyes:

[ 04-22-2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

While I give no quarter to repugs, this sounds like a reasonable campaign strategy. What's Bush going to sell us on to get re-elected if not national security? The economy? Blindingly swift health and education reforms he promised? Not likely.

Maybe he will run on the fact that the Iraqi's now have universal health care and a fully funded public education system [img]tongue.gif[/img]

What is with this short-term memory problem? The Democrats considered holding their convention in New York, but, to the dismay of New Yorkers, chose not to. The Democrats were not willing to bring a single dime of business to the city. Initially, Republicans had not intended to be in NY, but eventually decided that the city needed the business.

As WillowIX implied, if the Democrats thought they could get any advantage out of being in NY, of course they would have been there. But they decided they could get more mileage out of knocking Republicans than doing anything themselves.

That is the irritating part about the Democrats -- they have lost their vision. They no longer propose jack. They have noting to offer, so to cover that up, they attack Republicans, hoping people will not notice. And thanks to the public schools, most people don't have the reasoning skills to notice that the Democrats have not given a single reason to vote for them...

If I was a democrat I'd take that as a flame. Lucky for you I'm not.

Well, I don't personally agree with this. Being someone that lives in NY and has my whole life, it's our Republican govenor that is currently killing our future by making drastic cuts to our Health Care, Education System, Public Assistance, and Libraries. However, I don't lump all Repubs into that category, nor do I lump all Dems into a "good" category. I don't vote party line personally, but instead judge each candidate by their own merits rather then by what party they belong to.
And if you want to talk about "milking" 9/11, Pataki came out with ads thanking NY's for helping to get through 9/11 conviently starting 2 months before the election (a year AFTER 9/11). Golisano (from where I live) was no better in his campaigning, even though he was running as an Independent. My point, I don't think it matters what party someone's a part of, if they're a good guy, they're a good guy and if they're slime, they're slime.
JMHO.

Maybe he will run on the fact that the Iraqi's now have universal health care and a fully funded public education system [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Well, he can sweep the Iraqi vote for all I care. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Commenting further, [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] :D [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

*Shrugs* Of course, he is going to campaign on his successes. Why not? That's why he has such a high approval rating. Think the Dems are going to campaign on their military foreknowledge?

hareyquinn, before I go further, have you ever read Bastiat's The Broken Window?

You know that which is seen. After you have read The Broken Window, ask yourself, what is that which is not seen.

Thorfinn, I'm not niave and don't think there aren't things that go on behind the scenes that we the public don't see. The war on the Taliban, for example. Our gov't must have had some real damning evidence to have convinced other governments that were initially against us attacking them to suddenly do a complete reversal, yet we the public never saw the evidence, which is fine with me. All I was trying to say with my post is that by saying "Those repubs are so and sos..." and "Those dems are such and such..." is really watering down and generalizing the facts and therefore, actually serve to hurt your point rather than help it. I happen to usually be democrat in thinking, but there are many points the dems support that I totally don't agree with just as there are many points the Repubs support that I do agree with. I really don't think things can REALLY be broken down to "us and them" and to try to make it that black and white really whitewashes over the whole issue and misses the point altogether. If an issue is something one feels strongly for or against, they should act on it, not point fingers at the other party, that resolves nothing and only results in a circular argument between the two parties. Kinda like the discussions in the war forum.

You misunderstand me. "That which is not seen" is not referring to backroom deals and political maneuverings. Believe it or not, The Broken Window is a one-page primer on economics and politics, from which countless essays and papers, and even entire political philosophies have been launched.

The point was that the cuts in spending are seen. You can address that which is not seen from several points of view. First is that the alternative to cutting services is probably increasing taxes, since this money does not grow on trees. Increasing taxes draws money from uses to which it would have otherwise been placed, whether a consumer buying a new pair of jeans, or a company expanding and hiring more employees. In order to fully fund the social services, i.e., that which is seen, you in effect eliminate jobs and opportunities, i.e., that which is not seen.

Bastiat goes over it slowly and with great tact. I would strongly advise reading it if you want to think about things from anything other than preconceived notions.

But in a world of limited resources, where virtually everything we do is a tradeoff of various alternative ways of using our time and stuff, the moral of the story will always come down to that which is seen, and that which is not seen.

[ 04-22-2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

<font color="#ffccff"> I hardly think Clinton would run a campaign on his Lewinski affair, I don't think Jumy Carter would run a campaign on his handleing of the hostages....is it so weird that they will use the positives during their administration...has anyone noticed that despite over 6500 threats of national terrorism attacks from various groups since 9/11 there hasn't been a single successful attack?? Do you really think that happened by accident? I think not.

Say what you like but there have been many threats and none have succeeded since 9/11. One may happen tomorrow or the next day but so far we have been safe.

As for the money thing, historicly it has been the Dems that have outspent the repugs, so where was all the whining back then? And as I hear it there is a certain lady congress person from NY of late, who unlike the repugs got to keep her multi-million dollar book deal advance, and who has not handed in a single page yet...who has a war chest that is of dubious origin...so why not go after her? </font>

Disagree entirely. Dems hire 10 government workers, Repugs come along and call it waste, fire the 10 workers, and subcontract their jobs to a 175-member firm. That's not decreasing government, it's privatizing it. Also, can you back up this statement, especially in light of Reagan, Bush41, and Bus43 spending increases, particularly for the military.

Or, did I misunderstand that whole "read my lips" thing?

Both are addicted to spending - wait, addicted is a false word that makes it seem it's not their fault. Both choose to keep spending like rabid Valley Girls with Auntie's credit card.

Disagree entirely. Dems hire 10 government workers, Repugs come along and call it waste, fire the 10 workers, and subcontract their jobs to a 175-member firm. That's not decreasing government, it's privatizing it. Also, can you back up this statement, especially in light of Reagan, Bush41, and Bus43 spending increases, particularly for the military.

Or, did I misunderstand that whole "read my lips" thing?

<font color="#ffccff">You misunderstood my post kiddo ;) I ment in the campaign arena [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not saying that repugs cannot waste as many billions as the Dems...I think that by now both parties are quite capable of wasting infinate amounts of capital.</font>

Both are addicted to spending - wait, addicted is a false word that makes it seem it's not their fault. Both choose to keep spending like rabid Valley Girls with Auntie's credit card.

<font color="#ffccff">I completely and whole heartedly agree with you on this comment [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: My thought is that they should take a number that is 10% less than what the current annual budget is and say this is IT. This is the absolute spending cap, so live within your budget (to the federal government)</font></font>[/QUOTE]

[ 04-22-2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Look out for the hanging chads and brother Jeb...He didn't win the last one and I pray he gets dumped big time in 04.

Actually, Jeb beat the Damnocrats big time, and I hope he does it again. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

</font>[/QUOTE]Why, I'm SHOCKED such a thing would happen! Imagine a party using symbolism during their convention!
Come back when you have a REAL issue to discuss [img]graemlins/yawn.gif[/img]

Ok chew on this then, came accross this editorial piece today
Yellow Streak by Michael Tomasky. He sums up what is so wrong with this better then I did. He also lays out how the Dems would respond if they had the balls.


edit: part of quote got mangled in the cut and paste

[ 05-06-2003, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Thanks, Rokenn, I did not know that.