Well, I haven't met anyone who actually favors high taxes. I certainly don't. I do find it interesting that the same people who scream for tax cuts, aren't even affected by them, the under $100k families didn't get much help according the numbers I researched. Jail and assets seized is a bit of a stretch. Signing mortgages stating that you make double your actual income might be grounds for stupidity, but doubtful even that will lead to jail. I guess we'll soon see when this sub-prime nightmare finally plays out. The hundreds of billions spent on the war, and the excessive government we have created, both sides, could certainly be cut back enough to keep taxes where they are. We condemn those who lie to get loans, we condemn those who declare bankruptcy, we condemn those who live above their means, we condemn those who don't pay their bills in general. Yet we see our government, so hopelessly in debt, simply printing more money instead of paying its' bills. Falling for labels like liberal= high taxes, which is just a politcal statement, not based in fact, is the same as falling for conservatives = not helping those who need help via some government intervention/programs. I know conservatives who favor bailing out corporations and helping those who need it via government programs. Both prejudgements are simply political nonsense. As far as sexual behavior goes, I think that should be left behind closed doors, and possibly, just possibly, be an actual FREEDOM in America. Do we need big brother in our bedrooms? Doesn't seem like a conservative viewpoint to have our government in our bedrooms. All the labeling and blanket statements just irritate me to no end. There is no black and white, we are all human, thus we are subject life, no absolutes IMO. c
If the government were to abandon these people AND cut the welfare rolls, health care for those without insurance (i.e. illegals), social and educational programs for inner-city kids who'd rather destroy their school than learn anything....then it would be an "evil" government to most of the Left I'll wager. Well, all of my liberal friends are in favor of raising taxes, claiming it is necessary to do so since Hitler Bush has squandered so much of our treasure on a war for oil. And to my knowledge, Hillary and Co. are in favor of raising taxes. Please correct me if I'm wrong and let me know which of the Democratic candidates have stated publicly that they will not raise taxes should they be elected.
As you've brought up that ad at least a half-dozen times in various posts over the years, let's not forget it was in response to Goldwater's advocacy of "tactical" nuclear weapons use in Vietnam. This is not to excuse Johnson and the campaign he ran, but just to set the record straight as ads like that don't pop up in a vacuum (even tho Republican Condi Rice later imprinted that same mushroom cloud image on the American psyche to advocate and justify a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation).
What politco's state in their campaigns for elected office is, and has been for a hell of a long time, just fodder for their base. I think it was Bush senior who said the famous "read my lips,no new taxes" - well, that didn't last did it? Nixon said "I am not a crook" as well. My point is that what these guys say and what they do can, and usually is, just just rhetoric to get elected. I don't see too many programs cut in the last 7 years by the conservative administation. I don't call Bush, Hitler, and never would. Both sides bring up the H word for stupid arguments, and it gets old real fast. Is it so wrong to have real opinions that aren't always along the party line? Is it wrong to have personal opinions that are directly against the party line? I don't think so, or else so many republicans wouldn't be against the Administration's immigrant bill that Bush endorsed. Once again, just not black and white, we have all kinds of gray from which to hopefully think for ourselves without fear of agreeing with the other party. I'm just hoping to get past the name calling and division between Americans. c
Personally, I believe the real animosity between the 2 parties began during the 40-50's when the Democraps were proven to have communists in their ranks and did nothing about it, even after guys like Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs and others were proven to be Sov agents. The libs deny that this was true to this very day, even AFTER decoded Sov cables that prove beyond any doubt that there was agents in the govt were released in 1995 - Venona Project. Even after this, there is still an occasional tv show or NYT article that will say that the guilty verdicts were questionable. How can one have any faith in a political party that will continue to lie like this? The only time that there is peace between the 2 parties is when the Reps back down, and the libs can lie and distort the truth with no impediment.......
Agree, it sure would be nice if Democratic candidates stated that they would not raise taxes. Likewise, if Republican candidates stated that they would not raise taxes. Problem is, I clearly remember when Republican George Bush Sr. loudly and proudly proclaimed that, if elected, under no circumstances would he raise taxes (the infamous "Read My Lips"). But after he got into office he did just that, raise taxes, which helped cost him the 1992 election. So while it would be nice to hear from both sides it's still pretty much campaign rhetoric at this stage.
I'm not sure using McCarthyism as an discussion point to support a position of anti-liberal makes much sense. That time period is construed by either side as a black period in American history. Mc·Car·thy·ism (mə-kär'thç-ĭz'əm) n. 1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence. 2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition. Sort of justifies my point about name calling and other personal attacks, by either side. c
The difference is- McCarthy was right when he said that - 1- it probably isn't a good idea to have members of the American Communist Party (a real group back then) in sensitive positions in the govt, especially since Hiss was proven to be a communist agent. 2- That he believed that there were more in the govt that could be a security risk. Which was also proven to be correct beyond any conceivable doubt after the Venona cables were released. Libs are trying to distort history TO THIS VERY DAY- 1- when they claim that convictions were on shaky evidence - one woman - Judith Coplon - was arrested while in the act of passing papers to a Sov agent in 1949. And in 2002 , the Seattle Times writes an article claiming that the evidence was "entirely circumstantial".... some circumstance, eh? And this is AFTER the Venona cables were public record, PROVING that she was a paid agent for the Sovs...... 2- when the NYT publishes a letter from Harry White's daughter saying that he was convicted on "flimsy evidence". (in 1998, 3 yrs after the Venona papers were released). 3- when they say that McCarthy accused 57 people as being security risks without sufficent evidence (like from your definition above). He had plenty of evidence. In fact, he didn't go far enough, as the Venona cables later proved. There were, in fact, HUNDREDS of Sov agents working at very high levels in the Dem govt of FDR and Truman. That's a fact..... I could cite numerous more examples, but would be the point, really. The only evidence that most libs would accept as proof would be a confession. As long as the guilty say they're not, then the entire matter "needs further investigation"...... And your point about McCarthy proves what I'm saying to be correct - the only way to stop libs' crying is to give in and say, " oh yes, it was a dark period in our history". But that's ok, because the commies were exposed in the end, and that is what's important to the conservatives.....
I understand what you're saying and agree with you. Bush Sr. did utter that phrase and then renegged, no doubt. Still, did Hillary not vote in May for the biggest tax increase in history? Did she not call Bush's tax cuts "irresponsible"? Did she not vote against reforming the death/estate tax? Is it your contention that Hillary in the Oval Office will NOT amount to large-scale tax increases?