Criminal Kerry?

One would not have, and didn't, "do it". After Hiroshima, the government of Japan decided to fight on. Nagasaki was the reason they surrendered.

I'm no fan of Democrats, but Truman did the right thing. An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of US and Japanese lives. As horrible as the A-bombs were, they actually saved lives in the end.

 

Paul Tsongas was a decent person, much like Jimmy Carter.

However, he was a liberal through-and-through, and is now fondly remembered mostly because he died way too young.

 

Re: Re: For Bruce

That is "totally shameless."

Two names I don't know. Too bad Carla Howell isn't a Republican.

I'd like to see Romney as the Pres. nominee and Lt. Gov. Rockefeller of Arkansas as the VP nominee.

 

Perhaps, but some recent historians believe they would have eventually given up after Hiroshima and were bluffing with the decision to fight on.

Plus, I am not sure three days between the bombings really gave them a chance to reevaluate their decision.

But, who knows? It's all in the past. But it's fun speculating, ha!

 

Change the subject!

Can we like get back to talking about what a big criminal John Kerry is again?

It amuses me to no end watching you Bushmen attempt to rationalize your guy's failed regime.

President Kerry - ah yes. has a nice ring to it!

- Carl

 

Bluffing?

Gee...
Imagine that! The Japanese refuse to surrender for a few days after the first A-bomb.
One report on the FIRST bomb should have been more than a hint.
Remember, the citizens of BOTH cities had been leafletted prior to each bombing to get away and that they would be bombed.

 

Pardon me if I don't shed a tear. It's called war and people have it all screwed up today. The support or tolerance of governments by citizens of belligerant(sp?) countries is the reason their is a problem. Ask Osama bin Laden - he has it right.

The two faced dealing where the leaders are bad but the people are not responsible creates a situation where one doesn't know who the enemy is.

Did the average North Vietnamese really hate Americans more than the average South Vietnamese? I doubt it.
First beat them as enemies, then make friendships from a power position.

When they've seen you at your worst, maybe your best doesn't have to be quite as good.

 

Re: Re: Re: For Bruce

Reed Hillman is the former Commander of the Massachusetts State Police who is now a State Representative.

Brian Lees is a state Senate minority leader that Romney has taken a liking to.

 

Re: Change the subject!

I'm sure that Osama bin Laden agrees with you.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: For Bruce

Thanks for the info!

 

Re: Re: Change the subject!

Well, so do the thousands of unemployed, as well as a few insightful military minds who realize how badly Bush and his pals (Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld) have screwed this up. Like Richard Clarke, for example.

If Bush hunts down Osama and brings his head back to Washington on a pike (symbolically speaking) between now and the election, then I'll change my mind. In the meantime, I've seen gross incompetence at the leadership level that has only been somewhat salvaged by the professionalism of our military in execution of duty.

Again, it amuses me how you Bushmen hold out the spectre of "Osama on the loose" as the reason to keep going with this regime, despite the singular failure of the regime to either find Osama or effectively damage his operations. Meanwhile, we blew the hell out of Iraq. Ho hum. Wrong target. Wrong war.

 

Re: Change the subject!

Okay. Sure. If you insist....


RELYING ON THE STUPIDITY OF THE GREAT AMERICAN VOTER

One of the saddest aspects of this and so many other election years is the degree to which politicians rely on the stupidity and ignorance of the American public. The more you watch these clowns the more convinced you are that they truly fear an informed electorate.

This is particularly true among Democrats. Disagree all you want, but Democratic politics is crafted to appeal to less educated Americans. The lower your level of educational achievement, the less you earn when you enter the workforce. The less you earn the more likely it is that you will vote for a Democrat.

One thing that Democrats definitely rely on is the ignorance of average Americans as to basic economics --- an ignorance that borders on obscene. This ignorance is the result of our reliance on government for educating our children. The natural imperative for any organization is to grow stronger. Institutions will not intentionally weaken themselves .. nor will the people who live or feed off those institutions. Government is no different. It wants to grow, and it will construct and direct every entity over which it has control to promote that growth. This goes for government schools. Students who learn of the dynamic nature of capitalism and free enterprise will seek more economic freedom and less government economic involvement. Students who learn that allowing people to keep more of what they earn will actually spur economic growth will fight higher taxes. Students who learn that 80% of new jobs in our economy are generated by small businesses, not large corporations, will seek government policies that are favorable to small businesses, not policies that punish them.

Politicians understand the consequences of an economically literate voter base. That's why they rally to the defense of government education. It protects them.

Now ... let's discuss a specific politician ... The man of the people, John Kerry. If you want a good example of a politician exploiting the ignorance of the American people, you got just that at a gas station in San Diego yesterday. The media says that sKerry made an "unscheduled stop" at this gas station. I have a question for the media: If this stop was unscheduled, why were there a hundred supporters waiting for Kerry at that particular gas station? Oh well .... let's continue.

There was John Kerry -- at that gas station -- blaming the current gasoline prices on none other than George Bush and Dick Cheney. Kerry knows that people are upset with these prices .. and he also knows that these government-educated voters have no clear idea why these prices are high right now.

What would the well-educated voter know? Well ... here's a partial list of the reasons for high gas prices.

-There is a higher demand for gas in the U.S. American consumers are using more gas this year than they have in many previous years, even with the high prices.

-Environmental regulations lower the supply base of gasoline available to consumers. Oil refineries have to switch production at this time of year to boutique gas blends for specific geographical regions. This means that if there is a shortage driving prices up in one region supplies can't be shipped in from another region to meet demand ... wrong blend.

-We have about one-half the number of oil refineries in the United States that we had 30 years ago. The last time a new refinery opened for business was in 1976.

-There is an unexpected high demand for petroleum in China. Some think that China may be buying huge supplies to build a strategic reserve.

-Saudi Arabia has cut production. There is speculation that Saudi Arabia is recognizing that its reserves of crude oil are running out. Saudi production may never again reach previous highs.
The gas prices we face right now are not record high prices. In the early 1980s a gallon of gasoline cost about $2.90. That's adjusted for inflation, of course, but so is your income. Tough for government school graduates to understand, I know.

Now .. if you are a consumer aware of the foregoing facts, how likely is it that you're going to nod your head in agreement when John Heinz Kerry starts blaming Bush for the current high prices?
An educated voter is not John Kerry's friend.

Another area where Democrats rely on voter ignorance is in the area of jobs. John Kerry loves to talk about all of these jobs being shifted overseas and how he is going to punish all of those "Benedict Arnold CEOs" who are overseeing the decimation of the American workplace. Could Kerry get away with this if the voters knew:

-From 1993 to 2002 the U.S. economy created a total of 17.8 million jobs. During that time 310 million jobs were eliminated, and 328 million jobs were created.

-The new jobs being created are not "hamburger flipper" jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that between 2002 and 2012 management positions in business, finance and other professions will grow from 43.2 million to 52 million. That's a 20 percent increase. These professional positions will go from 30 percent of our total employment to 31.5 percent. That's not flipping hamburgers.

-"Offshoring" jobs has actually contributed to job and economic growth. Take computers, for instance. A recent study by the Cato Institute shows that the offshoring of computer-related manufacturing jobs has accounted for a reduction in computer prices in the U.S. by as much as 30%. This means that more small businesses can afford these computers, and larger businesses can afford more of them. This leads to more jobs and increased productivity. Estimates are that this rapid spread of computer use has added $230 billion to our GDP.

Now ... if more Americans were truly clued-in as to what is happening in our jobs picture, do you think sKerry could get away with his rhetoric? Not a chance. Again ... the uneducated voter is Kerry's pal.

Are you beginning to see why it is so important to so many politicians that our system of government non-education be preserved?

 

Re: Re: Change the subject!

Cyrus, while I agree with nearly everything you said, let's not besmirch the name of a great American, John Heinz.

How Teresa Heinz could marry Kerry after having been married to such an upstanding U.S. Senator of integrity, morals, and ethics as John Heinz is away beyond me.

Heinz was a rising star in the GOP and could have been President. What a tragedy he died so young.

 

Re: Re: Re: Change the subject!

Yeah, you're right. My bad.

 

Re: Re: Re: Change the subject!

Richard Clarke an "insightful military mind"??

 

Cyrus,

I agree with you completely that politics depends on a dumbed-down electorate – and not just politics, but the entertainment industry, fast food industry, car buyers, you name it.

I disagree with most of the rest of your tirade. Your view of economics is a little strange, especially in light of the fact that you excoriate the economic education of the average American. You seem to be defending the trickle down economics of the Reagan years (and really all Republican years). That was a colossal failure. There is no doubt about that. It took 8 years of Clinton to undo the mess of 12 years of Reagan and Bushie #1. Ironically, the job growth of which you so proudly beam was done almost entirely during the Clinton years. With Bush dumping billions into a completely misguided war, the economy is once again back peddling.

Moreover, the “government” that you rail against for its lack of economic efficiency (a Republican government, so who is it, exactly, you are attacking?) is learning to do all over again what Regan/Bush did in the 80’s: write billions of dollars of bad checks that will take years to undo (most likely by a Democratic president).

The economic duping of the public that you blame on the government is most clearly brought into focus by the one economic principle that you defend – the idea that if Americans keep more of what they earn, it will spur economic growth. The Repubs have been pedaling that one since time immemorial for exactly the thing you hate most: it appeals to a public that doesn’t think. Economic growth is spurred by dollars that have the greatest marginal benefit. A public that incorrectly assumes that the greatest marginal benefit for their dollars is always the token $50 kickback they get from a tax cut is a public that has been duped. And please don’t take this as an endorsement for government to take everything we earn. No Democrat believes that either. It’s just that this concept is the classic economic pacifier. A (Republican) government that can quiet the electorate with a tax cut is free to spend billions where it does no economic good whatsoever: dropping bombs, killing people, building war machines, and generally making rich that part of the population that is already rich. But don’t you feel better that you got that $50 check? Absolute, unequivocal nonsense.

You write, “The lower your level of educational achievement, the less you earn when you enter the workforce. The less you earn the more likely it is that you will vote for a Democrat.”

What exactly is your point? That Democrats are an uneducated lot who don’t earn much money? Even if true, are you surprised that people without power (the uneducated poor) would want to change things (i.e. vote Democrat)? And that makes you mad? Is that because you don’t want anyone stealing your hard earned cash – those pesky uneducated masses?

Your view brings into sharp study the crucial difference between Democrats and Republicans. And since you're prone to gross generalizations, here’s one of my own: the Democratic Party is the party of thinkers (if there is one). By and large the Democratic platform is one of thinking about others, and what might benefit society as a whole (the idea of greatest marginal benefit again), and of being able to hold opposing views in one’s mind and see both sides (essentially F. Scott Fitzgerald’s definition of a first rate intellect). The Repubs are the party that thinks about themselves (I got mine; screw everyone else; don’t take MY money). Let’s not forget that yours is the party that opposed rights for women, civil rights, and today is up in arms over gays.

And as for correlations between education and politics, I believe that if you do some research, you’ll find that a fairly large majority of scientists, university professors, writers, and artists, are Democrats. The smartest people in this society seem to disagree with you. But then you might shoot back that you think the smartest people in our society are the heads of companies like Northrop, Halliburton, or even George Bush. Let’s hope not.

 

No, no, no!

The Republican Party stood up for Civil Rights. Don't you know your history?

It was th Republican Party that freed the slaves. It was the Republican Party that was progressive in the area of Civil Rights before, during, and after the Civil War.

Read the story of the 1928 election between Republican Hoover and Democrat Smith. See who spoke out more in favor of Civil Rights for Blacks.

It was the Republican Party that passed the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. President Johnson couldn't get enough Democrats to support it so he turned to the Republicans. That legislation was passed because of Republicans, not Democrats.

You want to talk about a Party that oppossed Civil Rights? The Democratic Party oppossed Civil Rights.

It is the Democratic Party that was the home of Richard Russell, Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Ross Barnett, Orval Faubus, James Allen, John Bell Williams, Leander Perez, Allen J. Ellender, Jimmy Swan, Byron De La Beckwith, Harry F. Byrd, J. William Fullbright, Herman Talmadge, Marvin Griffin, Willis Smith, and a host of others.

Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller criticized President John Kennedy's Civil Rights stands. He questioned JFK's commitment to Civil Rights because JFK stalled, initially, on acting on the issue before finally taking a firm stand against the hatred and violence in the South. Afterwards, however, JFK had a Civil Rights record to be proud of.

The Democratic Party has a racist and segregationist history that is unsurpassed and undeniable! Martin Luther King, Sr., endorsed Nixon over Kennedy in 1960. Until the Democrats enslaved Blacks in the welfare system, Blacks, by a wide majority, were Republicans.

As far as women's right, let's rmember Republican Nixon endorsed the ERA.

As far as gay rights, let's not forget the Log Cabin Republicans. You have no leg to stand on when you condemn the GOP for its stands on equality issues, none at all. History is not on your side.

Finally, there has never, ever been Blacks in top governmental positions under any Democratic administration. Bush has Powell and Rice in top slots and has appointed more minorities to Cabinet-level positions than any other President, Democrat or Republican, in U.S. history.

 

Let add that I have a letter from former Black Republican U.S. Senator Edward Brooke, Massachusetts, wherein he sates "The Republican Party of Massachusetts has been the party of opportunity for minorities."

He goes on to say "In 1960 or 1962 (when I began my statewide candidacies) the Democrats would not have given me their nomination for Secretary of State or Attorney General. Either in convention or in an open primary."

Letter dated September 26, 1977.

 

Oh my god - the history of what planet are you talking about? I will not even take up your points one by one (though I am mighty tempted), because you are so off base. I'm not sure how you arrived at many of your conclusions, but it is frightening. I will point you in one direction, though. Concerning history, remember that the nature of the parties has changed from one century to another. Making comparisons across centuries is not generally valid. That is where some of your confusion comes from. The rest is too vast to address right now. Nevertheless, I give you huge credit for audacity.

 

You're the one who made this broad, sweeping generalization: