No Subject

From: " dbu," <repubs@waitfor08.com>
Subject: Re: OT - Iraqi leader likes Bush
Date: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:12 PM

In article <4570ac99$0$20553$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> " dbu," <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
> news:repubs-A1FD64.16203401122006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <_dKdnUyK8-_dPO3YnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> " dbu," <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
> >> news:repubs-C2126D.04230701122006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[/color]
> > Clintoon was a Rhodes scholar so I suppose he would have something on
> > the ball. I think you are underrating Bush by quite a bit and
> > overrating Kerry by a little bit. Bush did graduate from Yale and went
> > on to Harvard business school and got a masters degree. Harvard
> > business school doesn't give degrees you earn them.[/color]
>
> They certainly WILL give you a degree if you come from the right money or
> just have enough of it. At least, they would back then. And Harvard's
> not
> intrinsically tougher than anyplace else, you just have to be really
> special
> to stand out. The big advantage at Harvard is connections (this is also
> true of Yale and Princeton). The kids that go there get more
> opportunities,
> especially in the big financial centers. The schools that are really
> tough
> are the service academies and your tech-oriented colleges (CalTech, MIT).
>
> Kerry was picked to deliver the oration at his class graduation. This
> goes
> beyond grades; it means he had to come to the attention of quite a few
> people who then had to agree that Kerry really had something on the ball.
>
> It was certainly possible to slide through Yale on "gut" classes. Thus
> the
> famous frat-boy line, "Hey, George is in this class; it must be the one
> for
> us!"
>[color=green]
> > I wonder where Kerry got the money to attend Yale, were his parents well
> > heeled?
> >
> > Question, what is it that causes you to have a high admiration of
> > President Clinton? Name some of the attributes you admire in Clinton.
> > --[/color]
>
> Clinton is smart. No doubt about it. On top of that, he has the
> self-confidence to surround himself with other smart people who are
> willing
> to step up and tell him he's not as smart as he thinks he is. And, as
> President, he picked people for their ability, not just their loyalty.
> And
> he's not paralyzed by his smarts; he's got enough information and enough
> smarts to see many facets of every decision but he doesn't get too bogged
> down in over-analyzing things. If something needs more study, he refers
> it
> to smart people and works to keep up with the material enough to pass good
> judgement on what he gets told.
>
> Bush may not be particularly dumb but he doesn't put in the effort
> necessary
> to make smart decisions. And he picks advisors who let him down. And
> just
> watch him when he's forced to go off-message. He may be smart but he's
> certainly not quick and in some of these situations it's painfully obvious
> that he's very badly informed. There's a reason he doesn't do many press
> conferences. There's a reason they planted James Guckert in his press
> conferences to pitch easy underhanded questions to Bush. He's unwilling
> to
> step up to the plate and defend his positions. He made a lot of stops on
> the 2004 campaign but there were damned few where anybody but the party
> faithful could even get a look at him (I think he was here in the Twin
> Cities 4 times and every time you had to get tickets from Republican party
> organizers if you wanted to be in the same 12,000-seat auditorium with
> him)
> and fewer still (none here) where he could be asked questions that weren't
> pre-screened or coming from a known-friendly source.
>
> And he doesn't have the smarts to ask meaningful questions. Like, "How
> will
> we prevent an insurgency from taking root if things don't go well?" "Once
> we've defeated the Iraqi army, how do we confiscate its weapons?" "What's
> this going to be like if we don't find any WMD?" "What about...?" He
> goes
> with his gut, based on like and loyalty and a few strategic directions
> loddged in his head (Terrorism Is Bad, Saudis Are Friends, Saddam Is Bad,
> Taxes Are Bad, Freedom Is Good). I go with my gut a lot, too, but it's
> over
> decisions like "Lo-mein or kung-pao?" Or, if I go with my gut in a
> busines
> setting, it's because I'm on very familliar ground (because I've studied
> my
> specialty and all the alternative technologies to my specialty - trust me,
> there is some sh!t that I *really know*), I know the competition and I
> know
> the risks. And me - and the guys like me in my line of work - we don't
> get
> the deer-in-the-headlights look that President does when somebody asks us
> an
> unanticipated question.
>
> And it's offensive that Bush talks up free-market capitalism and "getting
> the government off the backs of the people" while the only money he
> actually
> made was his share of the profits getting his ball club moved into a
> baseball field paid for with taxpayer money. And that was old-boy network
> shenanigans, too. The Rangers didn't need him for his talent running a
> business or his deep understanding of baseball, they needed him for his
> connections and he did use them to deliver the goods.
>
> Look at it this way... the guy is President of the country that is the
> world's top economic power and not just top but unchallenged military
> power.
> But we face tough adversaries and tough questions about the future. As
> President, we need a guy who's at least a little bit smart but, more
> importantly, *thinks hard* and puts top people to work on all the issues.
> The President certainly doesn't come across as making that kind of
> commitment to us.[/color]
[color=blue]
> I see Minn. has a 2 billion plus surplus, state economy at least, must
> be doing pretty well. Are you happy about your property taxes?[/color]

Yes. If you don't like high property taxes, buy less propertly. We live in
a modest house and don't pay a whole lot.
[color=blue]
> Gas tax?[/color]

No. It's not high enough. The gas tax doesn't even begin to build all the
roads we demand and it should be making a significant contribution to our
defense effort. A couple bucks per gallon would be about right.
Politically, reduce a different tax, if you like, to make an increase in the
gas tax revenue-neutral and politicallyl acceptable. Making it deductible
(as all taxes should be) would be OK. I'd be OK with just jacking it up and
keeping the revenue.
[color=blue]
> Income tax?[/color]

More or less, yes.
[color=blue]
> Sales tax?[/color]

No. It should be zeroed and the revenue replaced with an increase to the
income tax. At the very least, it should be deductible (Congress must act).
[color=blue]
> More tax increases to come in light of
> the surplus, gas tax increases first then more later along with higher
> property tax. So open up your wallet some more and give more.
> Minnesota is about sixth in the country in total taxation. How about
> the three stadiums and the taxpayers part of the bill, nice.[/color]

And why not increase taxes? I don't think we need the stadiums, that's for
sure, but it's just another example of the wealthy using the government to
get wealthier (goold the history of the Rangers ball park and see what I
mean). The Replublican Congress and Republican President have been spending
like drunken sailors and just leaving the bills, unopened for the kids.
That's just plain wrong.
[color=blue]
> As for Bush, your assesment is your opinion. I don't share your opinion.[/color]

I'm shocked, utterly shocked.

I hope they bank that surplus. They're talking about "proerty tax
reform/relief" and 1) you don't change the structure of things based on a
one-time surplus and 2) the "relief" always makes something else worse.
Cities and towns must manage their own budgets and money from above often
leads to bad decisions.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]