Remember when Kennedy ran?

[ChildofChrist]

I have some friends sending out some very negative emails. They attack most everything about the Democratic candidate. They are suggesting that the country is going to hades in a handbasket.

Like religion...

Although I was young...mid-teen...I heard from the church pulpit that the Catholic, if he made it to the White House. would follow the dictates of the Pope. Well, history shows that he did not.

Even McCain has been downgraded as an alternative.

I've even read the suggestion that Bush should go a third term.

Think that I need some glue to patch some hair back in.

Has anyone else encountered the same situation? Just wonderin'.

[carolaa]

Well, first of all, I'm betting most of those emails are not just attacking, but outright lies, stuff they just make up to cause fear. At least, that's the kind of emails I get. And I wonder why I haven't seen any of those hateful lies about the Republican candidate. I'm curious if there are any going around.

Anyway, yes, I remember when I was in academy, one of the staff telling me that if Jimmy Carter were elected, it would bring about the time of trouble.

[Jeannieb43]

Yes. The Republican machine is fast at work.

They do more damage by emailing stuff than you could even imagine. Just recall the "Swift Boat Veterans" against our last Democratic candidate, Kerry -- the stuff was all a bunch of lies. But yet they don't hesitate to spread the mud all around. It's couched in such sanctimonious language that even a lot of my church friends have sent it on to me not realizing the true meaning of what they're forwarding. I've even caused some hard feelings among some others on those email lists by replying to their entire list, telling the truth about what they so innocently had forwarded.

This is just Karl Rove at work, again.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

**snort** The Democryptic machine isn't anything to brag about either. Neither party is worth voting with anymore. IMHO.

545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Reese -

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then

campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are

against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation

and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on

appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court

justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally,

morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague

this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was

created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional

duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.

They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a

congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care

if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has

the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises,

it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what

they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless

of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive

amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood

up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can

only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole

responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and

approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the

leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the

president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it,

they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace

545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and

irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not

traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain

truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it

must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan

not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire

and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they

can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from

whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into

the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,'

'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are

their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

[Woody]

Quote:

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

This sounds like the best solution of all. Kick out all them Demos. Look what we have by them being in control.

[Woody]

I think that it might be appropriate at this time to quote Aldona ...

Quote:

"Politics" comes from two ancient Greek words:

"Poli" which means "Many";

and "Tics" which means "Blood-sucking parasites."

[carolaa]

I've even caused some hard feelings among some others on those email lists by replying to their entire list, telling the truth about what they so innocently had forwarded.

I've done the same thing. But you're right, people can get offended at that. Anymore, I mostly reply just to them and ask them to pass on the truth. Especially if it's a first offense. Who knows whether they do or not, but I like to think that conscientious people would want others to know the truth. And hopefully that gives them the hint that they should check the facts before forwarding stuff. But when people keep sending me garbage even when I tell them it's not true, yes, I will do a Reply All. That usually stops them from sending me that kind of stuff.

[carolaa]

Quote:

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

This sounds like the best solution of all. Kick out all them Demos. Look what we have by them being in control.

HAHA I think you purposely missed the point that they are all guilty. Which, I suppose, is what most people do. Which would be why they remain in office. It's always been the same, no matter which party is in control.

[carolaa]

**snort** The Democryptic machine isn't anything to brag about either. Neither party is worth voting with anymore. IMHO.

I like that article. However, I still want to know if there are any nasty lies about Republicans going around. Why have I only seen those emails about the Democratic candidate?

[Dr. Shane]

Why would someone want to hear lies about anyone?

[carolaa]

Go ahead and twist my words, but I'm curious if there are any mass emails going around about other candidates, because I only remember seeing that type of thing going around about one candidate. I find that pretty interesting and am wondering if I'm missing something.

[Woody]

No ... I think that all those who support Obama are saints and would not do such a thing.

[melvin mccarty]

I remember when John Kennedy ran for president! The faithful fell all over themselves predicting it was the end of the world coming right up and the mark of the beast was imminent. mel

[carolaa]

No ... I think that all those who support Obama are saints and would not do such a thing.

It would appear that you're right!

TU

[Tom Wetmore]

Well, politics runs on two fairly simple propositions, Emphasize your favorite candidate's strong/good points and emphasize only the weak/bad points about the opposition.

The MO of Rovian-type, winning-is-all-that-matters-at-any-cost, politics is to just make up for any lack of material by just making it up. So if they are making up the bad stuff about the opposition one must also wonder about how much of the good stuff of their candidate is likewise made up. (Hindsight may now be giving us a fairly clear 20/20 perspective on the value/merit of Rovian political "success"...)

Now on the other hand, when there is plenty of true strong/good stuff about your candidate there isn't much need to build him up by tearing down the opposition. And furthermore, the plentiful true bad facts and weak points about the opposition mean that there there is no need to make things up on that side of the equation either.

(Have you wondered why one side seems to obsessively feel a need to assure us that they hold the moral high ground... Hmmm... )

And that is why you see an obvious imbalance in spreading of lies. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the relative moral/ethical value placed on honesty and truthfulness by either party... Oh not at all!

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, I have really been impressed with McCain taking the high road so far this election. I cannot remember of any other candidate in recent history doing that. I see he got rid of Phil Gramm recently after his poor choice of words.

[olger]

I must say, Phil Gramm was correct in his description of America being in a mental recession.

IF obama gets elected, 2 weeks after that, I predict that the media will say:

1) "The economy is turning around."

2) "Things are looking a lot better."

3) "It wasn't as bad as we thought..."

hahaa

[carolaa]

I would say that both candidates have taken the high road in that area - at least officially. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes. But I don't think those hateful emails came from the top dog.

[carolaa]

when there is plenty of true strong/good stuff about your candidate there isn't much need to build him up by tearing down the opposition. And furthermore, the plentiful true bad facts and weak points about the opposition mean that there there is no need to make things up on that side of the equation either.

(Have you wondered why one side seems to obsessively feel a need to assure us that they hold the moral high ground... Hmmm... )

And that is why you see an obvious imbalance in spreading of lies. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the relative moral/ethical value placed on honesty and truthfulness by either party... Oh not at all!

Tom

Yes, it reminds of a book called "The Great American Hypocrites." Of course, that is only one of many that deal with the same subject.

[carolaa]

I must say, Phil Gramm was correct in his description of America being in a mental recession.

IF obama gets elected, 2 weeks after that, I predict that the media will say:

1) "The economy is turning around."

2) "Things are looking a lot better."

3) "It wasn't as bad as we thought..."

hahaa

I have been disappointed with both candidates for caving in to media/public pressure when it comes to what their friends and acquaintances say. I'm getting really weary of it.

[olger]

You betcha..