Hi April,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments, no matter how much I disagree with them - you know I love ya!
But I have to take a moment to disect your arguments if you don't mind:
1. "This started months ago with the press, which in the last week has shown its true colors on the parts of CBS, to be dirty."
--to be honest, 60 Minutes in all likelyhood was duped by the fake documents - they were not mean-spirited (as Fox news is everyday). In addition, the actual person who did write the real memos says that the content in then is correct - that Bush did get preferential treatment. Even beyond that, it was Bush, Rove and co. that started the vietname era bashing by supporting the swift boat vets dirty attack machine. And the press played that angle up much more than they did the national guard thing (which in my mind is still a real issue since he makes such a big deal out of being a "war-time president").
2. "Universal care for everyone is wrong"
-- just because Canada doesn't have a perfect system and their rich people can afford to come down here and pay the thousands of dollars to get the best treatment does not make the idea of universal health care "wrong". Even if they didn't have universal health care, those people would still come here for top notch treatment. But surely you agree that giving the MILLIONS of American children and other citizens that have no health care whatsoever at least some basic free health care isn't wrong? The real problem is paying for it - and that would mean taxing the rich and so they fight back and paint the whole idea as wrong-headed.
3. "As far as the war, I supported it based on histories past, we let dictators do what they wanted in the 30's in Germany, he killed people, grew a army, took over land, and all this against the League of Nations and the treaty ending WWI."
--You have a point here. The problem is that NO ONE, not even those crazy liberals are disputing the fact that Saddam was a bad guy and the world is better off without him. However, let's be consistent. Doesn't also China, North Korea, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and many other countries also have brutal dictatorial leaders? Why aren't we invading them? Because they don't have lots of oil and a depleted military ripe for conquering. And now Bush and Co. are once again beating the drums of war saying that ANY criticism of how the post-war Iraq and or Afghanistan situation is being handled is hurting our troops! I'm sorry, but sending them over there and declaring to the wackos with AK-47s to "Bring 'em on" has done far more harm to them than that!
4. "yes Arnold is starting to turn around a bankrupt California, who all seem to share the ideas that I do, less goverement on business that create jobs.."
--Ok - The Terminator has not really done a damn thing to turn around his state's finances. He has put off all the crucial decisions and is still pushing for more tax cuts for a state that has a budget deficit larger than most countries in the world! He is doing the same as Bush: the next generation of Californians will be paying a heavy price for his so called economic "leadership."
Finally, Bush and the modern Republicans are not really about less government - the government (and it's deficit) has grown exponentially since Bush took office, the same as it did under Reagan. They just want less regulation of business so that they and their good ol' boy network buddies can make more money themselves as CEOs, shareholders and boardmembers! They don't give a damn about the average american citizen and their welfare. In the meantime, businesses are not hiring more, but they are certainly polluting our environment more, concocting more and more tax havens and financial shenanigans, and moving more and more jobs overseas.
As always, these are just my opinions (backed by hours of intense research and objective data of course!-) - I could be wrong...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment