Posted on 11/07/2004 2:35:24 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Democrats - obsequious in defeat, insufferable in victory.
No sense of proportion whatsoever.
"We do not kill those who disagree with us, or even those who ridicule us, but recognize the freedoms that protect others protect us as well."
It is the difference between savages and those who are civilized.
Good editorial.
They "get it" -- Bush won big
and the democrats are now wanting
Bush to mellow. HA!
Bi-partisanship begins with the losing side
reaching a consensus WITH our side. They must
give the most.
They did come here, and they did take advantage of our unique opportunities, and we lost the World Trade Center as a result.
-PJ
A two-fer of good sense, what's going on over there? I can't believe they are saying such glowing words about SocSec reform and Malpractice reform and yet they endorsed Kerry, whose plan for those things was NO and NO.
They certainly toned down the details of Van Gogh's death. He wasn't just shot in the street, he was shot, stabbed repeatedly, had his throat cut, and then a second knife was used to pin that threatening letter to his dying body. It's really not quite the same thing, but the point they make is well taken, although I'm nearly 100% sure it will fall on deaf ears with the radicals, although I venture the paper knows this. Maybe it is a hint to ordinary Muslims who want to stay in the West that they need to know even liberals "tolerence" for "diversity" and "multiculturalism" will only go so far.
Or we're going to have to kill them.
For some reason the paper left that part out...
That bears repeating.
Ever wonder why Social Security is in such bad shape? How many times has the government taken money out of Social Security to pay for other programs and then never put it back into the fund? Are we going to continue to throw good money in after bad or suck it up and pay for the mistakes of the past and reform Social Security in a way which will give each individual a little control over their retirement stipend. I work for the government and they have a retirement fund that we contribute to. You have a say in how the money is invested so when the market is depressed you can put the money into funds that will do better during those times and when the market is bullish you can put money into high risk-high yield funds. I believe if you privatize Social Security, in the long run you'll have a better system with more control in the individual's hands. You just have to be willing to bite the bullet and pay the cost of making the transition.
Rabid dogs are not tolerated anywhere, and when cornered, are killed, as no form of rehabilitation is possible.
Whatever happened to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin who rushed up close and killed Bobby Kennedy in 1968, when it looked like Kennedy was well on the way to being the Democrat nominee that year?(http://crimemagazine.com/04/bobbykennedy,0527.htm)
There really never was a "fund". As best I understand it the government's funding of social security is as follows; I decide to set up a retirement fund, every payday I take a portion of my pay and put it in my top desk drawer, then I write out an iou for that amount and put it in the top desk drawer, remove the money and put it back into my wallet and spend it on whatever. I then repeat this every payday and go merrily on my way secure in the knowledge that I owe myself enough money to retire on, when I reach retirement age I pull out my iou pile and present them to myself, whereupon I realize that I must continue working until I am dead to earn money to pay the money I owe to myself.
Bush has slowly been opening the eyes of Americans who've been walking around with their hands out.
He's telling them to LOOK! Government does not do things well, they do not spend your money properly.
He's telling people, "Keep your money!" He wants them to see they are better suited to make those choices.
With No Child Left Behind, Bush has parents asking public schools what in the world have we been paying for?
He's checking off the list and showing the voters the truth.
These pirates now want us to "reach out" a helping hand to work in unison....trust the cobra before you trust a democrat.
They don't have enough "capital" to defeat Bush's agenda.
Maybe we can make them a loan. They vote for President Bush's policies and they get to take some of his "capital" to the voters next election.
I don't know about this paper in particular but this certainly wasn't the tone of the Democrats in general before the election.
Then you were a fascist pig if you thought Social Security and the tax codes needed to be reformed. Gee, you mean Team Bush has real human beings that might, just might have ideas that would work? Quite a difference.
I did notice that they slipped in a bit about the wealthy "escaping their responsibility", as if 5% of the people paying 50% of the taxes is not enough.
I've got an idea! Over 50 million people voted for Kerry. If each of them would just send in an extra 10% beyond what is required by law the government would have LOTS of money to spend.
I sure haven't heard this kind of rhetoric coming from the left, has anyone else?
I haven't.
They just keep calling us (the winners) names and telling us we have to reach out to them (the losers).
That works for me.
They were too busy campaigning for Kerry and bashing Bush. There was no time for honest analysis and reporting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.