This man is a nuts

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As soon as Clinton was in office he pushed through the (at the time) Dem Congress a tax increase on the wealthy, and as soon as Bush was in Congress he pushed through the Republican Congress a big tax decrease on the wealthy (for all of his selective selection of families to show in TV, most of his tax cuts have gone to the richest Americans). I'd say that's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you? Dems seem to prefer to stay out of people's private lives; Republicans seem to want to legislate it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference too, wouldn't you? "Bankruptcy reform" which affects mostly poor and middle class (over 50 percent of bankruptcies are declared due to costs associated with a medical condition, for example), was pushed through by Republicans, fought against by Dems during Bush's reign. That's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you say?

Nothing in your post to Dalakani is persuasive about Bush's team being capable; just popular. The only one you can unequivocally say was competant is Baker, and as Dalakani pointed out, he's only been brought in now that Bush has made a complete mess of foreign policy. Isn't it funny that the man who campaigned on bringing the grownups back to the White House is now being portrayed in political cartoons as a bratty little kid, being shoved out of the room while Daddy and his friends take charge?

Saying Kerry "might" have invaded Iraq if he'd been in office is like me saying the World Trade Center "might" still be standing if Gore had been appointed Pres by the Supreme Court. We don't know, and with so many dead Americans resulting from both circumstances, it's nothing other than heartbreaking to even speculate on. Because we'll never know.

When it comes to taxes, one group wants the wealthiest Americans to pay 38% in federal taxes while the other group wants them to pay 35%. Sure there is a difference, but it's not that huge of a difference. If you were telling someone from another country what the difference is between the mainstream Dems and the mainstream Repubs when it comes to taxes, I think they would be surprised how similar the two parties are.

I have to disagree with you about your contention that Repubs want to get into people's private lives while the Dems don't. Can you give some examples? Sure there are some Repubs that are against abortion, but that's the only one I can think of, and I'm not sure if most people would call that interfering in people's private lives any more than many of the other laws out there. There are a lot of new anti-smoking laws out there. Some people may argue that these new anti-smoking laws invade our personal lives. The truth of the matter is that most laws have an effect on our personal freedom. That's just reality. If you live in a civilized society, you don't have unlimited freedom. There are tons of laws that restrict your freedom. By the way, I commend the Democrats for championing these anti-smoking laws. If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I don't want to be breathing some guy's smoke from the next table.

I have to disagree with your contention that Bush's foreing policy team was popular but not capable. If you look at the resumes and track records of those people, I don't know how you could argue this. As I said before, Powell was very successful as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs back in the late 1980s. Cheney was very successful as Sec of Defense. Rumsfeld had an impeccable resume, both in the public and private sector. What else do we have to go on besides a person's track record?