 sj |
||
|
||
POL: JEFFORDS II
|
|
|
Subject: POL: JEFFORDS II From: GUEST Date: 01 Jun 01 - 04:45 PM First part HERE |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Jun 01 - 05:09 PM Wow, a thread on that Jeffords guy. Doubt if there'd be any interest on Mudcat. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: mousethief Date: 01 Jun 01 - 06:13 PM "One of the post-switch defenses put out by the White House is that Jeffords left the party over a petty social slight: If it was petty of Jeffords to mind not being invited to the ceremony honoring the Teacher of the Year, how petty was it of the Bushes not to invite him? This kind of circular thinking leads people to conclude the Bushies think their own shit don't stink. " ---molly ivins |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Jun 01 - 06:24 PM Possibly. Mind you, most people find their own shit less disturbing at close proximity than someone else's... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jun 01 - 08:52 PM Well, that generalisation sounds plausible Hawk - but I think someone should carry out some proper scientific research into whether it's true or not. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Rebel135 Date: 02 Jun 01 - 03:10 PM Let me suggest that its time to reactivate the BULLMOOSE PARTY. I'D vote for Teddy Roosevelt anytime, too bad he been dead for 80 years. As a marginalized progressive Republican,(there aren't many like us out here) I find it deplorable in the change in the party. Not Democrats and Not Republicans..... Bullmoosers Forever |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 02 Jun 01 - 07:21 PM Dear John,
Why is it that political parties feel they have the right to try to force their members to vote a certain way?
Because the members run on a party platform and belief system that indicates to the voters what they're all about.
It might be nice if they got what they voted for. It's called I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y
Perhaps you'd like a football team where players from both sides would cooperate in scoring points for both sides? The scores could always be equal.
I've heard both Republicans and Democrats say things like, "This vote is a real test of party loyalty. A wrong vote here loses you the support of the pary."
You've heard mostly dems say that, it is indeed the way they operate.
How else would you explain the existance of the 10th most powerful US Senator, the liberal Republican Olympia Snowe?
Why would anyone belong to any party that would do that?
Because the democrats want to be in power for the sake of being in power. That's why they glom onto "issues" that seem to be a problem, sensationalize it, then sell the concept to the voters.
They then NEVER solve the problem.
Examples: Poverty, Black issues, education, the energy policy in California etc.
They don't want the problems solved as they are useful to them as campaign leverage. When Republicans come along with solutions, they dems become obstructionists.
A congressperson disagrees with the party line on a vote or two and gets cut out of the flock? How does that make any sense? It certainly seems to have backfired on the Rebublicans this time
I don't think the Republicans are guilty of doing this (since Jeffords said as much) but I wouldn't blame them if they had. The White House gave and gave and gave to Jeffords and he still jumped ship, he's been a liberal for decades. He and McLame can both get out.
I wish they were all independants, with membership in several policy-based parties. A senator could vote with the Fiscal Conservatives on financial matters
Maybe you should check out the effectiveness of the Italian Parliament as a working model.
the Green Party on conservation and ecology
The Green party is just a paint job on the RED party who simply are anti-business phoneys pretending to be sincere environmentalists.
..the Socialists on health care and insurance, and so forth
The Socialists would destroy both the health care industry AND insurance.
We could tell a lot about a politician's viewpoints by reading a list of his or her party affiliations.
You can tell a lot right now about a candidate by seeing who contributed to their campaign.
As things are now, as far as I can tell, Republicans and greedy power-hungry jerks that I rarely agree with
Of course they are power hungry, they've been out of power for 40 years.
If they appear to be jerks, it's because they have been fighting the overwhelming odds of the lying and obfuscating opposition party AND their obvious allies, the print and broadcast media. We think the Senate Republicans are spineless wimps
Democrats are greedy power-hungry jerks that I agree with only slightly more often
Well, I'm with you on that one.
When did fiscal conservatism change into endless mindless calls for tax cuts?
Well, let's see, when was the term coined? That's about when.
Have any of them ever consulted a financial counselor?
You mean like the Wall Street Journal or perhaps Greenspan? They both advocate getting excess money out of Washington. I believe Steve Forbes knows a thing or two about finance.
There is no finance person in the world who doesn't say that getting out of debt comes first. Pay off your debt, then start saving. It seems pretty basic, and anything else seems fiscally irresponsible.
Sounds like personal finance to me. Debt reduction is addressed in the Bush budget way before the insignificant tax cut.
I think what's really going on is that the rich people who chose George Bush for president
You think there are that many rich voters? The high income working Americans (not the "rich" idle trust fund Kennedy kids) who comprise the top 1% of the population, do however pay 24% of the revenue collected. Please!
are getting rich off the interest we are paying on our national debt.
School kids and retirees have US Savings Bonds and yes, you can get about 6-8% on a tax free government bond, why don't you go buy some and help support the appetite of the tax and waste liberals.
They also don't like having government regulations on big business
Or (unlike the LTDs) on small business, which most business are.
so they like a cash-strapped congress and executive branch that can't afford to pay for regulatory laws and rules.
Damn right! That's called limited federal government. You make that sound like a bad thing.
They like poor people to have fewer social services available
Wrong! We just want states, cities and communities dealing with social problems. Federal programs just consume and waste money.
because that makes the peons more dependant on their employers for the basic things like food and shelter.
Isn't that why YOU work? (assuming that you do) That's a good reason to stop being a "peon". If the liberals really cared about "peons" (your term not mine) they would show them how to engage in self improvement instead of perpetuating their misery.
Someone who will starve if they lose their job is more likely to put up with being mistreated and underpaid.
My GOD! I think I'm going to cry. Minimum wage is for kids, you start at the bottom and work your way up. If you stay unskilled all your life that's your own damn fault.
There are so many employment and educational opportunities in the US that nobody should be unemployed or underemployed.
This "poor little me" mindset coupled with the abject failure of the liberal government run "education" system is why we must import qualified brainpower to fill the scientific and math based careers (like engineering).
People from from third world countries, who are being recruited to fill these positions still receive a good education in their native poor countries and can see the boundless opportunity available in the US.
Of course, the tax cut also gives those rich folks even more wealth.
No, "the rich" already have wealth and are not paying much taxes thanks to their Tax-Free Municipal Bonds. It's the high income wage earners that will be able to keep some more of THEIR OWN MONEY! The "wealth" you referred to is the righful property of those who earned it.
I suppose if I had ten million dollars I would feel a burning need to have twelve million instead
Many of those "rich" you are referring to could be a typical married couple (let's say teachers) whose combined income is $100,000.
Greedy jerks.
Those BASTARDS!!!
I like regulation
They currently have plenty of it in China and North Korea and did in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
We prefer FREEDOM!!!
The only regret I have about Jeffords' defection is that he didn't do it in time to stop the tax cut idiocy.
He did! Then he voted for it. So he already betrayed you as did 12 heroic wonderful DEMOCRATS!
Stand by for the next round of REAL cuts.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: toadfrog Date: 02 Jun 01 - 07:33 PM Gee, Mav. Some people say you are conservative, others say liberal. I can't tell, because I am never able to wade through those interminable messages. Looks like a terminal case of graphomania. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jun 01 - 07:47 PM If you write Democrat or for that matter Republican with a capital letter, that refers to political parties. If you write democrat without a capital letter (as MAV seems to prefer), it just means anyone who believes in democracy, while republican means anyone who is in favour of not having a hereditary monarchy.
Snce both those parties are, to the best of my knowledge, in favour of democracy and opposed to hereditary monarchy in the USA, using the lower case doesn't really seem helpful. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 02 Jun 01 - 08:17 PM Dear McGrath,
If you write democrat without a capital letter (as MAV seems to prefer), it just means anyone who believes in democracy
OK! You got me there and you are indeed correct. I will correct that error and here's why.
1. There is no nation in the world that is a true democracy (which would require citizens to vote on every detail of national business)
2. There is no democracy in the Democrat party. (I don't say "Democratic" party) I alluded to this in a post to John. In both the Congress and in state Legislatures, "independent" or renegede Democrats are ostracized and replaced. Snce both those parties are, to the best of my knowledge, in favour of democracy.......
Republicans believe in the honest direct electoral process which chooses delegates to represent the citizens.
In New England we have a tradition of Town Meetings where annual citizen voting takes place (usually in the spring).
This is pretty close to democracy, but they still elect town officials who represent them. mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 02 Jun 01 - 08:24 PM Sorry Folks,
I didn't mean to post this on the old thread.
*****************************************************
Wavestar, What I don't understand is the contention that MAV and others seem to be making that each party should be the most extreme versions of themselves they can be.
Let me clarify then, the battle is not between Rs and Ds, but between conservatisim and liberalism. What results when compromise occurs is wish-washy moderatism. (Not a real policital position but a result of both)
Anyone who calls themself a moderate is just afraid to take a position or display any guiding principles. These politicians are the real liars (regardless of party) and will vote by public opinion poll to make sure they always get re-elected in order to perpetuate their cushy political careers.
Extremismof any sort is almost never the most practical or rational application of ideas or idealogies
Following the Constitution is not extremism.
Let me borrow a phrase and ask you to name all the great moderates who made their mark in history.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 02 Jun 01 - 08:33 PM Dear Toadfrog,
Gee, Mav. Some people say you are conservative
They would be right, although I'm not a Pat Robertson type.
others say liberal. I can't tell, because I am never able to wade through those interminable messages
Well, I try to respond point by point (where applicable) and leave plenty of white space between comments.
Looks like a terminal case of graphomania
Well it could be, but I ain't dead yet.
Have a good evening, mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Jun 01 - 08:56 PM Nice to see that you are rolling merrily along, MAV...I still think an alliance between liberals and conservatives would be far more useful than an eternal battle for supremacy between them. I base that on the fact that I have known many people of fine character in both camps. Once again, I am advocating a search for consensus, as opposed to a competitive approach to solving human problems. Chances are, if both sides can agree on something it's a good idea. If you're on a sinking ship, it stops mattering at a certain point whether you are liberal or conservative...everybody pitches in and does what must be done. If, however, you believe that their differences are irreconciable...then there is a solution. Divide the country into 2 approximately equal halves (which seems fair)...move all the liberals into one half and all the conservatives into the other...make each half totally sovereign over its own affairs...and promise ahead of time NOT to launch another Civil War! (this promise could be secured by aiming enough ICBM's at each other to cause mutual obliteration in case of any violation of said agreement...all missiles in that case would launch automatically and wipe out everybody). Then the conservatives could have their glorious conservative utopia, and the liberals could have their glorious liberal utopia, and they could each have a wonderful time proving how much better their way is than the other guy's way! McGrath - LOL! Very funny. Let's form a committee, allocate funds, and get right on it! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 02 Jun 01 - 10:29 PM I am never able to wade through those interminable messages. Eminently sensible! Nowt worthwhile reading there.
Looks like a terminal case of graphomania.
Well it could be, but I ain't dead yet. Yes, more's the pity. Here's hoping for that eventuality, long overdue. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 03 Jun 01 - 12:47 AM Yanker,
Yes, more's the pity. Here's hoping for that eventuality, long overdue
Looks like hatespeech to me.
What language woes thaet, I deidn't recognize the speeling?
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Shula Date: 03 Jun 01 - 02:19 AM Dear Folks,
Assuming, for the sake of argument, the manifest absurdity that wages are equitably distributed according to merit in this country (which is the only basis on which a *moral* argument could be made for cutting taxes on the rich), if the top 1% (in income) pay 24% of the taxes, but they will *receive* 37% of the tax cut, from whom is that extra 13% of "hard-earned money" stolen (er..withheld)? Personally, I don't think there is any justification for cutting taxes while there is one child hungry or homeless, while there is no universal access to medical treatment, while the country and, indeed, the planet, needs renovation of all sorts. In the alternative, I suppose we could return to a once-hallowed practice: if there is no recourse to justice, what the hell: EAT THE RICH!!! Ta, Shula
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Big Mick Date: 03 Jun 01 - 02:31 AM See.............Shula..........I love you........but there you go making sense again. Poor deluded person that you are.........do you really think common sense has anything to do with public policy?.........let alone any sense of decency and equity?.........a dreamer, that's what you are. And should you decide to run for higher office, check my credentials, they are pretty impressive. And I will run your campaign any time you want. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jun 01 - 07:21 AM "the battle is ... between conservatisim and liberalism". No, there is no intrinsic conflict between conservatism and liberalism, except when these are used as party labels (ie big letters rather than small). Any sane human being is capable of being conservative, liberal, radical, progressive, reactionary, revolutionary, according to circumstances and what they think needs to be done at any time and place.
None of those labels in themselves determine how you think about the practical issues such as what needs to be done, who ought to do what, and how the resources we share on this planet ought to be allocated. Those are the kinds of things about which "the battle" centres - and attaching those kinds of labels to the different sides just confuses matters.
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Shula Date: 03 Jun 01 - 09:00 AM Dear Folks:
Mr. Jeffords defection from the Republican Party has given me the first sign of hope I have had for this nation since what I believe, with passion, but without hyperbole, was a genuine fascist coup. I have watched, in fear and dismay, the necessary adjunct to such a usurpation: "good men do[ing]nothing." Even the supposedly "liberal" press has been so thoroughly co-opted that there was, and continues to be, little, if any coverage of the fervent protests which occur wherever the un-elected president appears, starting with the enormous demonstration in Washington, D.C. on Inauguration Day. Mr. Jeffords has my respect and my gratitude for what I consider a courageous act. May others who share his convictions take heart and do likewise. Here's to ya, Big Mick! Here's to a rebirth of the folk music of political satire and persuasion. And here's to the hope of better days to come! In gravest sincerety, Shula
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: kendall Date: 03 Jun 01 - 09:17 AM MAV, I am so glad to hear you say, in effect, that you and Pat Robertson are not buddies! John McCain screwed himself when he told the truth about that creep in the bible belt. As for compromise, expecting the liberals and conservatives to work together, is like expecting oil to mix with water. We all want what's best for this country. The hell of it is, we disagree strongly on how to get it. |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 03 Jun 01 - 09:49 AM McGrath,
No, there is no intrinsic conflict between conservatism and liberalism, except when these are used as party labels (ie big letters rather than small)
I guess it all depends on what "is" is. There is no difference between "up" and "down", left and right, right and wrong, hot and cold, ying and yang.
This is why, when we have a government by for and of the lawyers that people compare them to sharks, snakes, weasels and maggots.
Lawyers use word semantics to play games.
First of all, let's use the same language. In AMERICAN politics,(which is what we are referring to) we all know generally who we are talking about when we say liberal....Barney Frank.....Ted Kennedy....Paul Wellstone...most elected women of either party, all elected black democrats.
The ACLU, NAACP, NOW, AFL-CIO and the ABA are all liberal organizations, and the print and broadcast media are virtually so liberally biased that any rare conservative or balanced exceptions stick out like a sore thumb.
American Conservatives do not exist anywhere else in the world unless they have migrated there for some business or personal reason. Their domain is the US and their philosophy is easily identified in the US founding documents and federalist papers.
It is generally accepted practice to refer to American conservatives as "constructionists" or Constitutionalists.
Liberalism is a type of politics that makes (or worse, pretends to make) decisions based largely on emotion and uses popular issues as leverage to get their self serving (more government) programs passed.
If they can't get their liberal ideas implemented through legislation, they use the liberalized (through judicial appointments) Judicial branch and present seemingly frivolous law suits to "create" law.
The liberal judges are "liberal" with use of the language in their "interpretations", lenient treatment of criminals and overriding the will of the people.
The "liberals" reside largely, but not exclusively, in the Democrat party. They also are found in the Green, Reform, Socialist and Communist parties. Some Libertarians also call themselves "real liberals".
Of course (Sigh!) the Republican party has its own contingent of inexplicable liberal membership.
Although there are different shades of liberalism, they can be scored by voting records. If you can't tell them apart, just use the "Anti-" test.
The liberals are anti-everything:
First and foremost they are Anti-Constitutional and consider the document as a hinderence to their European Socialist style agenda.
Secondly (and as a real yardstick) they are anti-any conservative idea, no matter if it's a good idea or not. If they didn't originate the concept (which they rarely do) they oppose it.
Thirdly, liberals tend to divide and conquer, they believe in "group rights" which in terms of equality or fairness is an oxymoron, so they are Anti-equality and Anti-freedom as well.
I can therefore, for clarity's sake, safely refer to the "liberals" as Anti-Constitutionalists, and obstructionists if you prefer.
Any sane human being is capable of being conservative, liberal, radical, progressive, reactionary, revolutionary, according to circumstances and what they think needs to be done at any time and place.
Yes, and any "sane human being" is capable of being a military sniper (legal murderer) or a lawyer (legal liar and thief).
Although it's not always possible, American conservatives prefer to PLAY BY THE RULES and utilize tangible facts and logic on which to base decisions and not emotion.
There, a short response for Toadfrog's sake.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jun 01 - 11:49 AM "There is no difference between "up" and "down", left and right, right and wrong, hot and cold, ying and yang." The interesting ting about those dualities is that none of the qualities mentioned can exist without teh opposite one. "Up" without "down" is just meaningless.
A duality like liberal and conservative isn't like that. More like the duality of apples and pears, which are no more opposites than bananas and cauliflowers. There's no reason on earth why someone should not hold a while bunch of ideas that are commonly seen as "liberal" and a whole set of other ideas which are commonly seen as "conservative, " just as there's no reason someone shouldn't like apples as well as pears - or bananas as well as cauliflowers.
All right, people like to make up packages of ideas about all kinds of things and make-believe that they are all inherently part of the same thing, but much of the time essentially that's codswallop.
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 03 Jun 01 - 12:02 PM Dear Shula,
Assuming, for the sake of argument, the manifest absurdity that wages are equitably distributed according to merit in this country (which is the only basis on which a *moral* argument could be made for cutting taxes on the rich
So you're saying:
1. That a lot of high school drop out, homeless, nose picking, crack ho/drunks are pulling down the big bucks? (Oh wait, I just described half of Hollywood and the Rap industry, but then again, they're liberals.)
2. That a lot of PHDs are flipping burgers?
from whom is that extra 13% of "hard-earned money" stolen (er..withheld)?
You were right both times. The fed. gov. is legally stealing a greater portion of the income of high achievers. It will now be "withheld" at a slightly lower rate.(39% down to 35%)
When you're talking about two different percentages (the percentage of revenue collected and the percentage of the tax cut) you have an "apples and oranges" comparison.
Here's a thought: give tax cuts *only* on taxes paid on wages, so higher income *workers* get a bigger break than the "idle rich."
Brilliant....except that's exactly how has been done forever. What did you think we are talking about?
The wealth of the "idle rich" IS NOT BEING TAXED, just how much they take out of their investments. They could take out an amount below the minimum taxable income and live on that if they wish and still be zillionaires (like the Prohibition, rum running/ Uncle Joe McCarthy Kennedys).
Also it's common practice for any investor (even you) who once having taken their money out of the stock market prior to retirement to buy TAX FREE MUNICIPAL BONDS and live off the TAX FREE interest.
Also, why not stop pitting the comfortable against the obscenely wealthy by restoring a truly progressive, graduated income tax, and *raising* instead of lowering the top rate on truly enormous incomes
Why not indeed? Pitting income classes against each other (Class envy) is one of the many "divide and conquer" methods mentioned in the above post to McGrath.
If the poverty level were adjudged to be 25K for a family of four, the top tax rate wouldn't kick in until a couple with two children were making $250K.
We have the richest poor in the world NOW, with multiple cars, color TV, cable, PCs, free food, subsidized housing, free education including college in some cases. Why not raise the poverty level to $250,000?
By tying the tax rates to the fortunes of the poor, we would provide an incentive for the tax-paying (voting) part of the public to want to raise the poverty level
First of all why wouldn't a well intentioned "liberal" want to bombard the "poor" with the "education/self improvement" message to really help them climb the ladder to the highest attainable level of "comfort"?
Why would you consider the immoral act of taxing (stealing) their income in the first place? This simply punishes success and rewards underacheivement.
(The answer is; because you want the issue) and perhaps, in a better world, the minimum wage
The alternative, having lots of minimun wage entry level jobs, to attract kids into the job market (which raising the minimum wage eliminates) provides more incentive to "climb the ladder" through raises and the visibility of other higher than minimum wage jobs.
It also should be shouted from the roof tops that education (while not perceived as "cool" by many youth) is a good way to erradicate the need to ever have a MWJ, or that continuing education can always elevate a "worker" to a better position.
Personally, I don't think there is any justification for cutting taxes while there is one child hungry or homeless
Why is this happening and why aren't you holding the PARENTS of these children responsible? It is YOUR job to provide for YOUR kids or you don't deserve them. If YOUR parents didn't provide for YOU, that's child abuse.
while there is no universal access to medical treatment
There is, hospitals must give you medical treatment. Are you saying there droves of people dying on the sidewalk outside the medical facilities in the US?
while the country and, indeed, the planet, needs renovation of all sorts
We have the best economic system (employment opportunies) and medical system in the world. People from major socialist countries come to the US for life saving medical treatment not available at home. Further people are dying (literally) to get in to the US, but not to get out. (except of course for Cher, Alex Baldwin et al who haven't) If you want to save "the planet" well that's a beauty pageant thing.
In the alternative, I suppose we could return to a once-hallowed practice: if there is no recourse to justice, what the hell: EAT THE RICH!!!
There is nothing "Holy" about cannibalism or theft.
Where do you think YOUR income comes from, THE POOR?
No matter if it comes from an employer, a subsidy, welfare, a federal job, THE RICH CREATE ALL THE WEALTH.
mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 03 Jun 01 - 12:22 PM Dear McGrath,
More like the duality of apples and pears
Uh....I believe that's "Apples and Oranges", an American phrase used to describe a non-comparison.
To the best of my knowledge, "apples and pears" (Cockney)means stairs.(there's that language thing again)
There's no reason on earth why someone should not hold a while bunch of ideas that are commonly seen as "liberal" and a whole set of other ideas which are commonly seen as "conservative
That's absolutely true and I won't argue the point (surprise surprise) for example, I find it ridiculous that a naturally growing plant should be illegal to possess.
You must, however, concede I did make this statement:
"Although there are different shades of liberalism, they can be scored by voting records."
Obviously the same is true of conservativism.
What's the opposite of "codswallop"?
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: Wavestar Date: 03 Jun 01 - 01:50 PM See, MAV, I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless for me (and, I suspect, many others here) to talk to you, not because you're uncivilised or anything, but because you and I simply and manifestly believe different things, and I cannot help but read some of your posts and wonder if you're on a different planet. And since I do not believe for a moment that I could convince you to change what appear to be the set tenets of your beliefs, nor could you convince me to change mine, it's like shouting at each other from two non-intersecting lines, possibly on different planes. You have strong opinions you stand up for, and I respect that, but I'll never agree with you - so I'd be wasting my time even talking about it. And so would you, although you seem to enjoy that :) (talking about it anyway, not wasting your time.) So I'll wish you a very good day and bow out of the conversation. Just so you didn't think I wasn't bothering to respond to your post - well, in a way I'm not, but this is why. Cheers, J |
|
Subject: RE: POL: JEFFORDS II From: MAV Date: 03 Jun 01 - 03:54 PM Dear Wavestar,
Don't worry about what planet I'm on, nor what country. You aren't just disagreeing with me but with the US Constitution, existing tax laws, basic rules of economics and human nature.
you and I simply and manifestly believe different things
Do you know what you base your beliefs on? Do you care?
If you don't live in the US, none of this matters anyway. If you do, maybe you could do a little reading.
Just so you didn't think I wasn't bothering to respond to your post - well, in a way I'm not, but this is why
Maybe if you had tried, it would have caused you to engage in deep thought and research.
None taken
mav out |
| Share Thread: |