| Subject: Random Thoughts On John Kerry, Liberalism, and Apathy. |
Author:
Rob Dog Bastard
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06:00:10 08/19/04 Thu
Most people who vote liberal are not liberal at all. Appallingly, many are voting for Kerry simply as a vote AGAINST Bush. How sad for them that they have no candidate, or that they refuse take a stand and support their candidate (Nader, Badnarik, etc). Many Kerry voters, when finally derailed from the "but he's not Bush" argument and forced to face the actual issues can see the gaping holes in the liberal agenda and are able to comprehend it's potentially devastating effects on America. Still, though, they will vote for Kerry.
Kerry will help the economy, they say. History may prove them right, but only because history is often wrong. Kerry, should he win the election, will inherit an economy on the upswing and his attrocious economic policies won't really start put their stranglehold on things until 2007 or so at the earliest. This means Kerry will claim credit for the nation's strong economic growth created during the Bush administration.
Kerry stands up for the little guy, they say. I have yet to hear a good argument for this, but they all say it. Kerry proposes to cut the middle-class tax rates, reverse the Bush tax cuts, raise the minimum wage to $7/hour, provide nationalized health care, and more. How will the nation pay for this? The only way Kerry can do this without breaking his promises would be to increase the tax burden of the wealthy in order to pay for entitlements to the poor. This is theft, and should not be tolerated - an America where success brings only further obligation to the government tax rolls is not an America any of us would like to see. Kerry's misguided economic policy assumes a nearly limitless supply of money from the rich - they can afford to pay their dishwashers more money, pay more taxes, put more money into health care, and more - apparently he hasn't seen what such stifling business rules such as these have done to the business environments in countries like France and Germany.
Kerry will better handle national security, they say. Really? In the year after the World Trade Center bombing in the early 90's, Kerry attended zero of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings. Why didn't he care then? Kerry voted for the war in Iraq based on the same intelligence information given to Bush. Kerry fought in the Vietnam war then returned to denounce his fellow soldiers. Kerry's service in that war has come under fire from the majority of those under whom he served.
Kerry has more experience, they say. Well - this is true. Unfortunately, in the time that he has served in public office Kerry has accomplished little or nothing. WHat major piece of legislation has Kerry's name behind it. Where has he taken an important stand on any of the issues he now makes the principal points of his presidential platform? Kerry has been there, certainly, but he does not have the experience he would have gained had he been there to actually accomplish something.
What Kerry tells people is simply what they want to hear. He wants you to believe that under a Kerry Presidency we will all have good jobs, good education and good healthcare. We will have peace and prosperity the likes of which we could only dream of under Bush. Of course, this cannot be done in the amount of time Kerry will have to do it, and it will never happen using Kerry's out-of-focus approach to the issues.
The trouble is that while people can see and acknowledge this, they simply do not care. Too many have invested themselves in the notion that almost anybody will be better than Bush, and that Kerry is their only alternative. They will not vote for the man who they feel SHOULD be in office, but rather they will vote against the man they feel shouldn't. If American politics continues to work this way we will see more and more dissappointing cadidate choices in the coming years as the partys throw us mouthpieces rather than actual people.
Ask yourself, do you really believe in the liberal agenda?
Do you believe that health care is a RIGHT, and that it should be nationalized? Even if you do, do you believe that we can afford it? Look at other nations with nationalized health care and tell me honestly that their's is a better system . . . you'll quickly find that it is not.
Do you believe that the rich owe you money? The redistribution of wealth through taxation is unavoidable, but to place an ever-higher tax burden on the wealthy is to say that you deserve to reap the rewards of their success. That, my friend, is socialism.
I'm out of time . . . have fun.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
