IceBuster:


You mean that kind of disrespect and intolerance?

Supporting racial profiling, making outright racial slurs about Arabs, Muslims, or stereotyping Puerto Rican males driving 4 cylinder Toyotas, insulting Val's ethnicity, etc., while complaining about us PC, hypersensitive liberals who cry about tolerance and being careful about offending people apparently doesn't bother you, but GOD FORBID, I should refer to the President as "DUBYA", which has been so bandied about by BOTH sides, and the media, and comedians on TV, that it has become a common nickname, and in the spin room at the debate the other night, his people had big signs that read "W" on them.

I acknowledge that YOU did not make any of those comments, and that YOU have not in anyway disparaged Kerry or referred to him in any other manner than you described, but I do think you are being a little overly sensitive and reading alot into my use of the now common nickname for the President.

I certainly intended no disrespect or intolerance, and if you really find that offensive I apologize. In any future correspondance I have with you I will certainly be more careful to refer to him as you refer to Kerry.

I wonder if the reason you were so quick to jump on that first is that (while you make some very good points and a very good argument, even though I disagree) perhaps you are not totally confident in your own case?


Yeah, I always hate it when politicians look you right in the eye and tell you "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES". You just know they are not going to be able to keep that promise. He would have been better off if he had just said that he would do everything in his power to avoid increasing the tax burden on those making under $200K, and would start by rolling back the tax cut on the top 1% to the same level it was at the end of the Clinton administration, but that we have a tough road ahead of us and we may all have to make some sacrifices. But then you and your fellow Bush supporters would have accused him of waffling and flip flopping, wouldn't you?


I am unclear as to what is your top priority? Is it taxes, the economy, or internal security and the safety of your children? Unfortunately, you may very well have to choose one over the other two. And you may have to pay for it! So perhaps we can't have our cake and eat it too, but we should really start taking a little of the cake away from those who have by far the biggest pieces, wouldn't you agree?


Voting records are funny things, really. There is often more to a bill than the specific title or issue that it addresses. Other things can be attached to a bill, like some big giveaway to special interests, or other unrelated items which a legislator is unable to support and can't get removed or recrafted in committees and debates. So he votes against the whole bill.

Furthermore, just because a legislator votes against a particular bill does not mean he is opposed to the entire issue, just the way that particular bill addresses that issue. Kerry has said he will support tort reform. And maybe the reason he has voted against any energy initiatives during the Bush administration is that maybe they contained certain giveaways or no bid contracts to companies like Haliburton or Enron?

As for taxes, everything else in this country goes up in price, gas, milk, heating oil, food, healthcare, I suspect that the cost of running our country must go up from time to time too. Maybe that explains at least in part why Kerry has voted to increase taxes during the over twenty years he has been in Congress. How much has your income increased over the past 20 plus years? I wonder how many times various Republican senators have also voted to increase taxes during that same period?

Thank you for your reply,

Jim