"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:53:53 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:

(snip)
If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry
may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and
none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.

I think it is unlike that Kerry will run the government based on some
religious superstition.

No, Kerry seems more likely to run the government based on some
unrealistic idea
of a Nanny State, with big dreams involving the government doing
everything for
everybody. Of course, somebody is going to have to pay for that, and I
don't see
Kerry raiding his wife's trust funds, so he'll have to get the money from
the
liberal's favorite source, the taxpayers. No problem. American taxpayers
have
deep pockets. :/

Actually, Kerry has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy and that
would include his wife. You give me the impression that the choice is
between a big spending Kerry and a thrifty Bush. That simply isn't the
case. Bush is such a huge spender that even the truly conservative (as
opposed to the neo-cons) are starting to revolt. Bush has already spent
money that will come from future taxes - taxes that will be paid by you and
your children. Unfortunately Bush has decided to spend your money on a war
in Iraq. More money is being spent to rebuild that country while people go
without here. The defense contractors and the Carlisle Group are raking in
your tax money as we speak. Money for social programs is being ****ed away
on "faith based" programs that are about as sound as witchcraft and alchemy.
Given the choice between socialism and fascism, I'll take socialism. You
can have Bush's "big Brother" state.