taylorky Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 >Democrats are being perceived as anti-American, >overly-partisian, and petty, and that is a sure recipe for defeat. and you uncle brucie are percieved by your right wing conservative masters as a child molesting, family destroying,sex crazed pervert. why pitiful little gnomes like you will do anything to sit at the massers table (as if he would even let y'all)is beyond any rational thought. maybe you just get off on the humilation and abuse, lol i bet thats it; you pay the boys to shit and piss on ya because you believe unworthy little toads like you don't deserve any better. people like you i hold in utter contempt. is this post hate filled?........sure is .....i hate anyone that helps the wing attempt to keep me in my place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 >and you uncle brucie are percieved by your right wing >conservative masters as a child molesting, family >destroying,sex crazed pervert. If you think that all people who have conservative political views hate gay people, then you are too irrational and bigoted - not to mention childish - to bother with. Go read the Supreme Court decision that was issued last week regarding sodomy laws. It was probably the most significant event ever for both gay people and for the cause of equality in the history of the Republic. That decision was written by someone named Justice Anthony Kennedy, a lifelong conservative Republican appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. He was joined in the decision by 2 other Justices - half of the majority - nominated by Republican Presidents. Compare that decision to one of the most prominent and liberal Democratic Congressman in the country, Pete Stark, who last week yelled at a Republican Congressman by repeatedly calling him a "fruitcake" and a "cocksucker." Also compare Justice Kennedy's decision to the Democratic nominee for the Senate in North Carolina, who accused his Republican opponent of being opposed to family values on the ground that he attended a fund raiser with Rudy Guiliani, who - the Democrat said - was an "enemy of family values because he lived with a homosexual couple in New York." Make sure to also check out the television commercials ran by Demorcatic Sen. Max Baucus in the last election - where Sen. Baucaus ridiculed his opponent for being a hair stylist and implied he was gay and should therefore be defeated. And don't forget to look at the Defense of Marriage Act - probably the most destructive piece of anti-gay piece ever enacted. The President who signed it into law, whose signature appears at the bottom, is Bill Clinton. It was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in the Senate. How can you possibly belong to a politcal party filled with such anti-gay bigots? You must hate yourself and want to be shat on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 >and you uncle brucie are percieved by your right wing >conservative masters as a child molesting, family >destroying,sex crazed pervert. If you think that all people who have conservative political views hate gay people, then you are too irrational and bigoted - not to mention childish - to bother with. Go read the Supreme Court decision that was issued last week regarding sodomy laws. It was probably the most significant event ever for both gay people and for the cause of equality in the history of the Republic. That decision was written by someone named Justice Anthony Kennedy, a lifelong conservative Republican appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. He was joined in the decision by 2 other Justices - half of the majority - nominated by Republican Presidents. Compare that decision to one of the most prominent and liberal Democratic Congressman in the country, Pete Stark, who last week yelled at a Republican Congressman by repeatedly calling him a "fruitcake" and a "cocksucker." Also compare Justice Kennedy's decision to the Democratic nominee for the Senate in North Carolina, who accused his Republican opponent of being opposed to family values on the ground that he attended a fund raiser with Rudy Guiliani, who - the Democrat said - was an "enemy of family values because he lived with a homosexual couple in New York." Make sure to also check out the television commercials ran by Demorcatic Sen. Max Baucus in the last election - where Sen. Baucaus ridiculed his opponent for being a hair stylist and implied he was gay and should therefore be defeated. And don't forget to look at the Defense of Marriage Act - probably the most destructive piece of anti-gay piece ever enacted. The President who signed it into law, whose signature appears at the bottom, is Bill Clinton. It was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in the Senate. How can you possibly belong to a politcal party filled with such anti-gay bigots? You must hate yourself and want to be shat on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 >A super-liberal, nay-saying Governor from a tiny New England >state who is viciously opposed to an extremely popular war. >Why not just re-nominate Michael Dukakis? You should also compare him to Mondale and McGovern, which is what everyone else (especially Democrats) who fears Dean does. You obviously haven't done your homework. If you read about where he stands on the issues instead of just believing what the conservative news media tells you, Dean is not by any means "super-liberal" and he is not anti-war: he is anti-lying. There's a difference. He has stated many times that he is not a pacifist (he's all for sending troops to Liberia); he just expects our leaders to have integrity. He was against rushing into war without concrete proof that it was necessary. Two of his biggest arguments are for a balanced budget and for shoring up our homeland defense. He is also against federal gun control laws. So let's see...because he is for gay civil unions (not gay marriage) and was against rushing into war without good reason, that makes him super-liberal? Here, read this from salon.com today. It's about Al From and Bruce Reed, who penned an anti-Dean memo to the Democratic Leadership Council in May: So far, From and Reed's warnings to the Democratic Party, to the extent that they've reached the rank and file at all, appear to have had no impact on Dean's campaign, which has surged in fundraising, volunteer support and national and state polls. If anything, the DLC's attacks have increased support for the Dean campaign.... That's because rather than running as McGovern, Dean seems to be running according to the campaign playbook outlined by none other than From and Reed in their very smart Feb. 11 memo, "What It Takes to Win the White House." "Your most formidable opponent," the duo wrote, "isn't President Bush or your fellow contestants for the nomination. Your real enemy is the ghost of Democrats past... What From and Reed did not realize is that their DLC would become the Democratic ghost against which an insurgent Dean would run. Rather than running against the Democratic Party of 1972, Dean is running against the DLC-dominated (in image, if not in fact) Democratic Party that lost the House in 1994, the White House in 2000, and the Senate in 2000 and again in 2002. This, too, is just as From and Reed advised, though they seem to have forgotten that. "The real front-runner, fresh off its triumph in the midterms, is the Democratic Party's losing image," they wrote in February. "If you want to win the presidency in 2004, you have to redefine the Democratic Party in 2003. By all means, capture your party's imagination -- but do it on your terms, not theirs." That is exactly what Dean is doing -- by directly challenging the party's support for the president's war in Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and such losing or poorly funded pieces of legislation as the Patient's Bill of Rights and the No Child Left Behind Act. "Don't look for the false unity that comes from shying away from every controversial issue, and reject the consultant consensus that stacking constituency upon constituency will add up to a majority," wrote From and Reed. "Now more than ever, the one reason to seek the presidency, and the only way to win it, is to unite people behind a cause that is larger than your candidacy.... Now that Dean is capturing the party's imagination on his own terms, the DLC is crying foul.... The group is losing sight of the larger narrative, and assisting its real opposition by attacking Dean. But in the end, victory might well go to the boldest candidate, despite the carping of the cautious and centrist. "Americans don't vote for someone who has positioned himself in the center," says Curtis Gans, former director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "They vote for a human being who they trust to help them solve their problems." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 >A super-liberal, nay-saying Governor from a tiny New England >state who is viciously opposed to an extremely popular war. >Why not just re-nominate Michael Dukakis? You should also compare him to Mondale and McGovern, which is what everyone else (especially Democrats) who fears Dean does. You obviously haven't done your homework. If you read about where he stands on the issues instead of just believing what the conservative news media tells you, Dean is not by any means "super-liberal" and he is not anti-war: he is anti-lying. There's a difference. He has stated many times that he is not a pacifist (he's all for sending troops to Liberia); he just expects our leaders to have integrity. He was against rushing into war without concrete proof that it was necessary. Two of his biggest arguments are for a balanced budget and for shoring up our homeland defense. He is also against federal gun control laws. So let's see...because he is for gay civil unions (not gay marriage) and was against rushing into war without good reason, that makes him super-liberal? Here, read this from salon.com today. It's about Al From and Bruce Reed, who penned an anti-Dean memo to the Democratic Leadership Council in May: So far, From and Reed's warnings to the Democratic Party, to the extent that they've reached the rank and file at all, appear to have had no impact on Dean's campaign, which has surged in fundraising, volunteer support and national and state polls. If anything, the DLC's attacks have increased support for the Dean campaign.... That's because rather than running as McGovern, Dean seems to be running according to the campaign playbook outlined by none other than From and Reed in their very smart Feb. 11 memo, "What It Takes to Win the White House." "Your most formidable opponent," the duo wrote, "isn't President Bush or your fellow contestants for the nomination. Your real enemy is the ghost of Democrats past... What From and Reed did not realize is that their DLC would become the Democratic ghost against which an insurgent Dean would run. Rather than running against the Democratic Party of 1972, Dean is running against the DLC-dominated (in image, if not in fact) Democratic Party that lost the House in 1994, the White House in 2000, and the Senate in 2000 and again in 2002. This, too, is just as From and Reed advised, though they seem to have forgotten that. "The real front-runner, fresh off its triumph in the midterms, is the Democratic Party's losing image," they wrote in February. "If you want to win the presidency in 2004, you have to redefine the Democratic Party in 2003. By all means, capture your party's imagination -- but do it on your terms, not theirs." That is exactly what Dean is doing -- by directly challenging the party's support for the president's war in Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and such losing or poorly funded pieces of legislation as the Patient's Bill of Rights and the No Child Left Behind Act. "Don't look for the false unity that comes from shying away from every controversial issue, and reject the consultant consensus that stacking constituency upon constituency will add up to a majority," wrote From and Reed. "Now more than ever, the one reason to seek the presidency, and the only way to win it, is to unite people behind a cause that is larger than your candidacy.... Now that Dean is capturing the party's imagination on his own terms, the DLC is crying foul.... The group is losing sight of the larger narrative, and assisting its real opposition by attacking Dean. But in the end, victory might well go to the boldest candidate, despite the carping of the cautious and centrist. "Americans don't vote for someone who has positioned himself in the center," says Curtis Gans, former director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "They vote for a human being who they trust to help them solve their problems." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pyell Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Of course I know that Clinton was impeached for perjury. I also know that it arose out of his squalid sexual encounters with a White House intern. I also know that it had the potential to destroy his presidency by showing him up as a promiscuous philanderer who serially broke his marriage vows. Look at what a similar accusation did to Gary Hart. Instead, he emerged from the whole affair as a statesman. Yes, he has an eye for young women - as did many of his predecessors. Contrary to the expectations of many, (and the trite political wisdom of quite a few), Americans were perfectly capable of recognising that a President who had an occasional fling could still be an outstanding President. Yet there were an awful lot of doomsayers when the whole saga began to break in the media who thought that Clinton was finished and that sexual immorality wouldn't play well in Peoria. Many Republicans thought they were on a winner. Instead, they found it was nothing of the kind, and Americans really wanted their politicians to get on with the job instead of engaging in the ludicrous and hypocritical posturing (on both sides) that marked the impeachment trial. Which really only makes my point. Conventional political wisdom so far away from the next election is a waste of time and energy. Nobody could seriously predict the re-election of Bush until at least the middle of next year with any degree of confidence. There are too many things that could change suddenly and unexpectedly to make any kind of prediction. He's riding high now - but then so were an awful lot of his predecessors who rode very low a few months later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pyell Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Of course I know that Clinton was impeached for perjury. I also know that it arose out of his squalid sexual encounters with a White House intern. I also know that it had the potential to destroy his presidency by showing him up as a promiscuous philanderer who serially broke his marriage vows. Look at what a similar accusation did to Gary Hart. Instead, he emerged from the whole affair as a statesman. Yes, he has an eye for young women - as did many of his predecessors. Contrary to the expectations of many, (and the trite political wisdom of quite a few), Americans were perfectly capable of recognising that a President who had an occasional fling could still be an outstanding President. Yet there were an awful lot of doomsayers when the whole saga began to break in the media who thought that Clinton was finished and that sexual immorality wouldn't play well in Peoria. Many Republicans thought they were on a winner. Instead, they found it was nothing of the kind, and Americans really wanted their politicians to get on with the job instead of engaging in the ludicrous and hypocritical posturing (on both sides) that marked the impeachment trial. Which really only makes my point. Conventional political wisdom so far away from the next election is a waste of time and energy. Nobody could seriously predict the re-election of Bush until at least the middle of next year with any degree of confidence. There are too many things that could change suddenly and unexpectedly to make any kind of prediction. He's riding high now - but then so were an awful lot of his predecessors who rode very low a few months later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pyell Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 This is just dodgy statistics. In the last 40 years there have been 8 Presidents, 7 of whom were elected. Only 3 of them were Democrats. That is such a statistically small sample that nobody would take it seriously. In the last 60 years, HALF the Democratic Presidents did not come from the South (if you count Missouri as not being in the south). One of them came with the additional baggage of being the first-ever Catholic elected to the Presidency. But try this one. In the last 43 years, no less than a QUARTER of all Democratic Presidents came from New England! What an impressive track record for the small states of New England! It's so completely out of proportion to their population and industrial might. Obviously Americans think that New Englanders have a special appeal in the White House. I think Dean must be assured of victory on these statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pyell Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 This is just dodgy statistics. In the last 40 years there have been 8 Presidents, 7 of whom were elected. Only 3 of them were Democrats. That is such a statistically small sample that nobody would take it seriously. In the last 60 years, HALF the Democratic Presidents did not come from the South (if you count Missouri as not being in the south). One of them came with the additional baggage of being the first-ever Catholic elected to the Presidency. But try this one. In the last 43 years, no less than a QUARTER of all Democratic Presidents came from New England! What an impressive track record for the small states of New England! It's so completely out of proportion to their population and industrial might. Obviously Americans think that New Englanders have a special appeal in the White House. I think Dean must be assured of victory on these statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 Also, Doug: Dean would use part of the savings from the tax cut repeal to establish a Homeland Security Trust Fund dedicated to three objectives: preparation, protection, and prevention. Preparation would entail more than $5 billion in aid to local first responders. Protection would involve extra funding and more stringent security measures for ports and borders, plus money for detection and identification technology. Prevention would focus on foreign threats and would include greater U.S. financial and political involvement in programs to limit nuclear proliferation. It would be funded in part by some of the money previously set aside for missile defense. (from Salon 7-17-03) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 Also, Doug: Dean would use part of the savings from the tax cut repeal to establish a Homeland Security Trust Fund dedicated to three objectives: preparation, protection, and prevention. Preparation would entail more than $5 billion in aid to local first responders. Protection would involve extra funding and more stringent security measures for ports and borders, plus money for detection and identification technology. Prevention would focus on foreign threats and would include greater U.S. financial and political involvement in programs to limit nuclear proliferation. It would be funded in part by some of the money previously set aside for missile defense. (from Salon 7-17-03) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 >Dean appears mean, hateful, and angry - Have you ever seen him speak? He's got a great sense of humor and does not come off as angry at all. That is the image that the conservative news media wants to portray so they only publish photos of him scowling. I've seen photos and videos of Dean on the Dean sites and he does not appear mean, hateful or angry in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 >Dean appears mean, hateful, and angry - Have you ever seen him speak? He's got a great sense of humor and does not come off as angry at all. That is the image that the conservative news media wants to portray so they only publish photos of him scowling. I've seen photos and videos of Dean on the Dean sites and he does not appear mean, hateful or angry in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 And from Dean's own site: "A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can only be accomplished through strong financial management, Governor Dean has cut the income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt. Not only did the governor pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any future economic downturn. During the Dean tenure, more than 41,000 new jobs have been created, the state's minimum wage has climbed twice, incentive programs have expanded to help downtowns attract new businesses, and tax incentives were created to attract and keep new companies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 And from Dean's own site: "A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can only be accomplished through strong financial management, Governor Dean has cut the income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt. Not only did the governor pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any future economic downturn. During the Dean tenure, more than 41,000 new jobs have been created, the state's minimum wage has climbed twice, incentive programs have expanded to help downtowns attract new businesses, and tax incentives were created to attract and keep new companies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorky Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 hmmmmmmm lets see, you clowns have jerry falwell,trent lott,pat robertson,bob jones etc:,etc:whewwwwwwwwwww to many to name etc:,lol uncle bruicie maybe some day they will let you in the big house,through the back door of course,and never never past the kitchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylorky Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 hmmmmmmm lets see, you clowns have jerry falwell,trent lott,pat robertson,bob jones etc:,etc:whewwwwwwwwwww to many to name etc:,lol uncle bruicie maybe some day they will let you in the big house,through the back door of course,and never never past the kitchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 >How can you possibly belong to a politcal party filled with >such anti-gay bigots? This is another reason to support Howard Dean. As he has said, in a line he borrowed from Paul Wellstone, he belongs to "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." He, too, is pretty disappointed by much of what the party has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Munroe Posted July 26, 2003 Author Share Posted July 26, 2003 >How can you possibly belong to a politcal party filled with >such anti-gay bigots? This is another reason to support Howard Dean. As he has said, in a line he borrowed from Paul Wellstone, he belongs to "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." He, too, is pretty disappointed by much of what the party has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 >You should also compare him to Mondale and McGovern, which is >what everyone else (especially Democrats) who fears Dean does. I did - nominating non-Southern Democrats - let alone liberal ones - has been an automatic recipe for extreme failure in every single election since 1960 - but if you want to try it again, go ahead. You're a True Believer. > If you read about >where he stands on the issues instead of just believing what >the conservative news media tells you, Dean is not by any >means "super-liberal" and he is not anti-war: he is >anti-lying. There's a difference. Oh? So he was in favor of the war in Iraq? That's news to me - and to him. He was one of the most ardent anti-war advocates in the country. > He has stated many >times that he is not a pacifist (he's all for sending troops >to Liberia). . . . LOL!!!!! That is really the funniest thing ever. He opposes the use of the military when it comes to doing things that actually have an effect on our national security or in places (such as the Middle east where we have vital national interests at stake. But he supports using the military in places where we have no vital interest at all. Uhhh . . . I'm not sure if you or he has heard this or not . . . . but the reason we have a military is to defend U.S. national security. Being opposed to the use of the military when it comes to that, but favoring its use for charity work, reflects a complete contempt for what the U.S. military is about. He wants to raise taxes - use our military for charity work - keep the military restrained when it comes to fighting the enemy - and he spouts virtually every liberal dogma that is - but he's not a liberal? I'd like to ask you a question: Do you think that the United States is in a war right now? >He was against rushing into war without concrete proof that it >was necessary. Two of his biggest arguments are for a >balanced budget and for shoring up our homeland defense. I see. Being in favor of a balanced budget is nice, but saying you would like one doesn't make it so. How are we going to "shor[e] up homeland defense"? Isn't that going to cost more money? Which social programs is he going to cut in order to the balance the budget? Or is his "balacing the budget" goal to be achieved by increasing the taxes which American citizens have to pay - a real election winner. >So far, From and Reed's warnings to the Democratic Party, >to the extent that they've reached the rank and file at all, >appear to have had no impact on Dean's campaign, which has >surged in fundraising, volunteer support and national and >state polls. OF COURSE the "rank and file" love Dean - the "rank and file" is always comprised of the most extreme ideologues in your party. They are the ones who brought you Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale and who supported Jesse Jackson in droves, and they are the ones who are about as far away from the political center as it's possible to go and still be in one of the 2 parties. Let them choose your candidate - please. Amazing - the only nationally successful Democratic politician of the last 20 years is Bill Clinton, and Democrats have learned absolutely nothing about what he did that allowed him to won - nothing. In fact, they are doing everything he warned against, and is still warning against, as though his view is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 >You should also compare him to Mondale and McGovern, which is >what everyone else (especially Democrats) who fears Dean does. I did - nominating non-Southern Democrats - let alone liberal ones - has been an automatic recipe for extreme failure in every single election since 1960 - but if you want to try it again, go ahead. You're a True Believer. > If you read about >where he stands on the issues instead of just believing what >the conservative news media tells you, Dean is not by any >means "super-liberal" and he is not anti-war: he is >anti-lying. There's a difference. Oh? So he was in favor of the war in Iraq? That's news to me - and to him. He was one of the most ardent anti-war advocates in the country. > He has stated many >times that he is not a pacifist (he's all for sending troops >to Liberia). . . . LOL!!!!! That is really the funniest thing ever. He opposes the use of the military when it comes to doing things that actually have an effect on our national security or in places (such as the Middle east where we have vital national interests at stake. But he supports using the military in places where we have no vital interest at all. Uhhh . . . I'm not sure if you or he has heard this or not . . . . but the reason we have a military is to defend U.S. national security. Being opposed to the use of the military when it comes to that, but favoring its use for charity work, reflects a complete contempt for what the U.S. military is about. He wants to raise taxes - use our military for charity work - keep the military restrained when it comes to fighting the enemy - and he spouts virtually every liberal dogma that is - but he's not a liberal? I'd like to ask you a question: Do you think that the United States is in a war right now? >He was against rushing into war without concrete proof that it >was necessary. Two of his biggest arguments are for a >balanced budget and for shoring up our homeland defense. I see. Being in favor of a balanced budget is nice, but saying you would like one doesn't make it so. How are we going to "shor[e] up homeland defense"? Isn't that going to cost more money? Which social programs is he going to cut in order to the balance the budget? Or is his "balacing the budget" goal to be achieved by increasing the taxes which American citizens have to pay - a real election winner. >So far, From and Reed's warnings to the Democratic Party, >to the extent that they've reached the rank and file at all, >appear to have had no impact on Dean's campaign, which has >surged in fundraising, volunteer support and national and >state polls. OF COURSE the "rank and file" love Dean - the "rank and file" is always comprised of the most extreme ideologues in your party. They are the ones who brought you Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale and who supported Jesse Jackson in droves, and they are the ones who are about as far away from the political center as it's possible to go and still be in one of the 2 parties. Let them choose your candidate - please. Amazing - the only nationally successful Democratic politician of the last 20 years is Bill Clinton, and Democrats have learned absolutely nothing about what he did that allowed him to won - nothing. In fact, they are doing everything he warned against, and is still warning against, as though his view is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 >Also, Doug: > >Dean would use part of the savings from the tax cut repeal . . . As I said, central to his platform is a promise to raise taxes. You don't think Walter Mondale is a perfect analogy for Dean? Mondale also made raising taxes a centerpiece of his platform, and he won 1 state. Ronald Reagan won the other 49. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 >Also, Doug: > >Dean would use part of the savings from the tax cut repeal . . . As I said, central to his platform is a promise to raise taxes. You don't think Walter Mondale is a perfect analogy for Dean? Mondale also made raising taxes a centerpiece of his platform, and he won 1 state. Ronald Reagan won the other 49. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BewareofNick Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 No what Dean wants to do is control the out of control Repiglican spending. See separate thread for details. You watch too much Fox News. We spin. You comply. “On the fields of Trenzalore, at the fall of the Eleventh, when no living creature may speak falsely or fail to give answer, a question will be asked. A question that must never, ever be answered: Doctor.....WHO?????" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BewareofNick Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 No what Dean wants to do is control the out of control Repiglican spending. See separate thread for details. You watch too much Fox News. We spin. You comply. “On the fields of Trenzalore, at the fall of the Eleventh, when no living creature may speak falsely or fail to give answer, a question will be asked. A question that must never, ever be answered: Doctor.....WHO?????" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts