I'm with you.... -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:57:33 02/07/02 Thu
Author: Donk
Author Host/IP: 28.indianapolis-17rh15rt.in.dial-access.att.net / 12.85.0.28
Subject: I'm with you....
In reply to: Southern Gent 's message, "The numbers just don't jibe" on 21:48:34 02/04/02 Mon

There is simply no reason to cut "beneficial" spending in order to pursue "preferred" spending. There really should be a compromise and balance. That was (in my view) Reagan's single greatest problem -- he cut spending based on his personal feelings about things which essentially deprived us of our voices in those matters.

Reagan had no real understanding of "welfare" -- he had no real understanding of social dynamics, yet he had a personal dislike for welfare, mental health problems, and people who work for a living. He was a thoroughly dislikable person, shallow and petty in all respects.

Yet, apparently he embodies the spirit of the Republican party which says enough about them.

There is no way a country this wealthy can't afford to provide for the common welfare AND the common defense, so if it doesn't, it means those in power don't want to. I don't know if we can have global trade and inflexible, unrealistic provisions for people who are displaced or eliminated by those developments. It is this unrealistic view of reality that I find most dsturbing about the Republican party.

Probably a third of its voting base is there because it opposes abortion (and it is too stupid to understand that nobody "supports" abortion), ostensibly because it cares about children. Yet, it supports a party which is miserly to the point of absurdity in all programs that benefit children. Logic dictates that they really don't care at all about children, but hate abortion and probably those who get them. So much for walking a mile in another's shoes.

The Democrats had better start actively answering the republican hype, revisionism, and outright exploitation of the ignorance, prejudices, and fears of its constituency. If those who support Republicans were at all as they think themselves to be, they wouldn't stand for how they are exploited. That is what is so pathetically funny about the whole thing!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]