A Public letter for the attention of HE George W. Bush at the occasion of the upcomig "Presidents day" SMCCDI (Public Statement) Feb 12, 2004 Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) ________________ February 12, 2004 The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House Washington, DC Fax: (202) 456-2461 Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the Iranian Student Movement and the Iranian Diaspora around the World, especially our oppressed countrymen, we extend our sincerest appreciation for your leadership and efforts to promote long term peace and democratic rule in the World. We also want to use this opportunity to express, once again, our deepest gratitude for your consistent and open support of our people in their quest for true freedom and democracy. Indeed, your tireless support of our subjugated and tyrannized people has touched millions of Iranians and they view you as an ardent defender of freedom and a source of hope. As one of the few world leaders that fully appreciates and openly supports the aspirations and goals of our subjugated country, we extend our thanks. Let us assure you, as you plan for the conquest of Mars, that you have already succeeded in conquering the hearts and souls of millions of Iranians. It is, therefore, imperative that you are re-elected this November, and you can count on our constant support, and votes, in the upcoming election. TO READ THE REST >>>>>> http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3128.shtml
You seem to believe that I am rather "conflicted" when it comes to being a registered Republican and yet not be a big fan of George Bush . . . So first off, I would say that such a premise on your part is indeed . . . FALSE. You state that no one out there can lead this Nation better than George Bush, nor do they have the same conviction as George Bush. My argument would be that I feel that Bush's conviction is flat out wrong. And by the way, I do not find anything of value in Condoleeza Rice, so don't get me started their. She is a cheerleader. Pure and simple and cannot think on her own. You also seem to feel that being Pro-Environment is somehow not part of the Republican Party's platform . . . which although the stereotype of the Republican Party on the environment is most likely true, I happen to live in the great State of California where we have unprecedented beauty, and I believe that most business leaders and corporate CEO's feel a certain responsibility to doing things the "clean" and "green" way so that their very own children and children's children can enjoy it for decades to come. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican. And didn't he run on a platform of protecting the environment? Maverick, George Bush is a Federalist. He is not a supporter of States Rights, nor is he fiscally responsible. The fact of the matter is that Bush is for BIG GOVERNMENT and big deficits . . . He has already spent more of the governement's discretionary money in the past 3 years than the Clinton Administration has, and I am talking double-digits here. Excuse me Mav. But I'm for free markets, a strong defense department, no nation-building, no amnesty for illegal immigrants, small government that doesn't outspend itself every chance it gets, a tax code that can fit on the side of a postcard, a government that respects the environment, a government that supports education, a government that supports free trade and cracks down severly on illegal dumping, and a government that respects the Bill of Rights and our Constitution, which I might add was a stroke of genius by our forefathers . . . they were certainly way ahead of their time! On that score, I would say that George Bush has failed miserably.
Waggie, you wrote all that and still didn't even answer my question. I gave you a list of names of very very well respected republicans. I'll give you those names again. Bill Frist, Condoleezza Rice, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, J.C. Watts, Bill Owens, Rudy Guliani, and Sam Brownback. You mentioned none of these names although you claim to have problems with Rice, fine what about the others? I think it's pathetic that you can't find one single republican that you would vote to put in the White House over a democrat. Come on Waggie, seriously, I mean I have to ask this again. If you don't like any republicans, why are you a republican? I don't mean this in a negative way, there is nothing wrong with being a democrat or a liberal and I have said this many times on ET. I just want people to be honest about their beliefs. Of all the Senators, Congressman, Governors, and even Attorney Generals in this country, you can't name one republican? I mean what the hell are you going to do in 2008 then? Cleary you have a serious problem here. You belong to a party in which you support none of the candidates. I think this is the first time in history that this has happened.
What is it that you don't understand? I have already said that I like Senator John McCain. I believe that he has the integrity and the right kind of background to lead us during these difficult global and domestic times.
Please tell me how REPUBLICAN it is of George Bush to show no fiscal restraint whatsoever - - - running up huge budget deficits, trample states rights, and give amnesty to illegal aliens? How Republican is that?
I hate to say this Waggie, and keep in mind, I have a lot of respect for McCain but he is a very big spender. During his time in the Senate he has passed bill after bill after bill. His voting record was a huge minus for him during the 2000 campaign. So I don't think McCain would be better then Bush. I don't think he would be worse but not better.
I agree with you on that but you are still skirting around the issue. I agree, Bush has not a been a fiscal conservative, but we are not talking about Bush now, but rather his replacement and your inability to support any republican. OK, fine you come out and name McCain, but like I said, look at his voting record, he is NOT a fiscal conservative and he does not support tax cuts.
If you want a huge tax break incorporate a NPO (like I did) and name yourself CEO. 65% of the money coming into the NPO has to be spent on the stated intended purpose of the NPO, the rest can go to whatever the CEO wants it to. HA HA HA suckers, and I shoudn't even be flaunting this info so consider it a gift from me to you. If you would rather not waste time and money incorporating one, I'm open to the idea of splitting mine into equal shares. Your cost would be one half of the cost I've spent on the incorporation.