I agree, all politicians are liars.
There's a huge difference to me regarding extremely deadly liars. I'd love for Willie to contact me...what a tune...
"What Ever Happened to Peace On Earth" by Willie Nelson
"There's so many things going on in the world
Babies dying
Mothers crying
How much oil is one human life worth
And what ever happened to peace on earth
We believe everything that they tell us
They're gonna' kill us
So we gotta' kill them first
But I remember a commandment
Thou shall not kill
How much is that soldier's life worth
And whatever happened to peace on earth
(Bridge)
And the bewildered herd is still believing
Everything we've been told from our birth
Hell they won't lie to me
Not on my own damn TV
But how much is a liar's word worth
And whatever happened to peace on earth
So I guess it's just
Do unto others before they do it to you
Let's just kill em' all and let God sort em' out
Is this what God wants us to do
(Repeat Bridge)
And the bewildered herd is still believing
Everything we've been told from our birth
Hell they won't lie to me
Not on my own damn TV
But how much is a liar's word worth
And whatever happened to peace on earth
Now you probably won't hear this on your radio
Probably not on your local TV
But if there's a time, and if you're ever so inclined
You can always hear it from me
How much is one picker's word worth
And whatever happened to peace on earth
But don't confuse caring for weakness
You can't put that label on me
The truth is my weapon of mass protection
And I believe truth sets you free
(Bridge)
And the bewildered herd is still believing
Everything we've been told from our birth
Hell they won't lie to me
Not on my own damn TV
But how much is a liar's word worth
And whatever happened to peace on earth"
Conservative/Liberal Joke
-
YankeeRose
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Saturday Oct 09, 2004
- Location: Altunea, PA
- Contact:
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
From a Constitutionalist point of view, HR550 is nothing more than a huge federal foot trampling on states' rights. The constitution clearly dictates that the process of voting is up to the several states. A mandate like this, whether funded or unfunded, would probably be appealed by one of the states and be struck down.FatVin wrote:why wont THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Congress Pass laws to make sure that make your votes are counted. HR550 is hung up in Committee. Why haven't they passed HR4463 and Senate Bill 1975 (The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005)
What are the Republicans afraid of? They've been so busy trying to bring free elections to Iraq what about Free and Honest election here at home.
GET THAT DONE
If this issue must be dealt with at the federal level, it should come in the form of a constitutional amendment that grants the federal government power over setting voting standards.
The other bill is a bit more constitutional. What I call The Voting Protection Act For Morons, Idiots and Imbeciles covers actions that can be considered within the federal juris diction. Its only been in the Senate for a little over a month, so I would expect them to get to it in early 2006.
You will simply have to wait until the Democrats are done with all their filibusters before proceeding with this new legislation.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
You posted your fair share on this thread. Now you want to disappoint Vinny by not allowing him to respond to the only responsible reply that was posted?FretBored wrote:Could a duely appointed representative of this board please VETO! any further postings to this thread?
At least until after Christmas?
Please Santa!
That's kind of selfish, especially before Christmas, isn't it?
Just call it the gift that keeps on giving....
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
YankeeRose
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Saturday Oct 09, 2004
- Location: Altunea, PA
- Contact:
Sorry, Wolf
I think I got ya on this one. Amendments 14, 15, 19 and 26, grant Congress the power to ensure voting rights are protected and doesn't limit them at all to how they do it. I would think that a strict Constitutionalist like you would know that.
I find it unfathomable that even the most rabid Archconservative, mindless dittohead, would come out against ensuring that every citizen's right to vote is protected and that every vote counts and is properly counted.
What could possibly be objectionable about that?
What considerations could possibly have priority over that?
Your Beloved "States Rights" aren't worth spit unless EVERY citizen of that state has the right to vote and every vote counts and gets counted properly
I know that some of you are arguing with me to argue with me but come on surley even the most Knee-jerk liberal and the hardest core conservative can get together on the concept that
every elligble citizen gets to vote, every vote counts and that every vote should be counted
I think I got ya on this one. Amendments 14, 15, 19 and 26, grant Congress the power to ensure voting rights are protected and doesn't limit them at all to how they do it. I would think that a strict Constitutionalist like you would know that.
I find it unfathomable that even the most rabid Archconservative, mindless dittohead, would come out against ensuring that every citizen's right to vote is protected and that every vote counts and is properly counted.
What could possibly be objectionable about that?
What considerations could possibly have priority over that?
Your Beloved "States Rights" aren't worth spit unless EVERY citizen of that state has the right to vote and every vote counts and gets counted properly
I know that some of you are arguing with me to argue with me but come on surley even the most Knee-jerk liberal and the hardest core conservative can get together on the concept that
every elligble citizen gets to vote, every vote counts and that every vote should be counted
Blooz to Youz
FV wrote...
"grant Congress the power to ensure voting rights are protected and doesn't limit them at all to how they do it. ....
Combining Congress and unlimited power in the same sentance should put a scare in everyone. And it does not matter if that congress is under Republican or Democrat control.
An interpretation of Congress to have unlimited powers to set up voting in the States is NOT everyone's interpretation. That is why there is a supreme court to determin these things.
A major purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the Federal government and specifically enumerate the rights of the States and individual citizens of the United States.
"grant Congress the power to ensure voting rights are protected and doesn't limit them at all to how they do it. ....
Combining Congress and unlimited power in the same sentance should put a scare in everyone. And it does not matter if that congress is under Republican or Democrat control.
An interpretation of Congress to have unlimited powers to set up voting in the States is NOT everyone's interpretation. That is why there is a supreme court to determin these things.
A major purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the Federal government and specifically enumerate the rights of the States and individual citizens of the United States.
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
No ya don't.FatVin wrote:Sorry, Wolf
I think I got ya on this one. Amendments 14, 15, 19 and 26, grant Congress the power to ensure voting rights are protected and doesn't limit them at all to how they do it.
HR550 is not a bill about protecting anyone's right to vote. Its all about the Feds telling the States what voting equipment they should buy and what equipment they can't use and what kind of records to keep and a lot of other election process hyperbole that is none of the Fed's business.
All a state is obliged to present Washington is a group of Electors, a group of Representatives and two Senators.
In case you haven't noticed, the Supreme Court is tilting a little differently these days. What may have been gray areas in the past are quickly becoming black & white, with little tolerance for Federal encroachment on the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
States' Rights and Peoples' Rights are pretty much the same. When the Feds encroach on the rights of a State, they encroach on the rights of every citizen of that state.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Oh for the love of mike:
Here is the 26th amendment in it's entirety:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's it.
15 is says basically the same thing with respect to race, 19 covers sex.
14 says
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sections 2,3, and 4 are about representation and other stuff but
Section 5 says: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It is a reasonable interpretation to conclude that the negligent miscounting of votes, deliberate or not, is a violation of the 14 amendment and depending on who's votes get miscounted possibly the 15, 19, and 26, therefore Congress does have the authority to legislate how elections are conducted. They have this power under Article IV section 1 (full faith and credit) as you can't have fair elections in some states and not in others
Article IV Section
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 4 goes on to say
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
It's a republican form of government not a Republican Party form of government.
In a republican form of Government, Every Citizen gets a vote, every vote counts and vote is counted.
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
doesn't apply here because Clearly, Article IV and The 14th Amendment gives these powers to Congress
Why are you against fair elections everywhere in America?
Here is the 26th amendment in it's entirety:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's it.
15 is says basically the same thing with respect to race, 19 covers sex.
14 says
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sections 2,3, and 4 are about representation and other stuff but
Section 5 says: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It is a reasonable interpretation to conclude that the negligent miscounting of votes, deliberate or not, is a violation of the 14 amendment and depending on who's votes get miscounted possibly the 15, 19, and 26, therefore Congress does have the authority to legislate how elections are conducted. They have this power under Article IV section 1 (full faith and credit) as you can't have fair elections in some states and not in others
Article IV Section
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 4 goes on to say
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
It's a republican form of government not a Republican Party form of government.
In a republican form of Government, Every Citizen gets a vote, every vote counts and vote is counted.
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
doesn't apply here because Clearly, Article IV and The 14th Amendment gives these powers to Congress
Why are you against fair elections everywhere in America?
Blooz to Youz
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
I see the DNC has you pretty well trained. If I was against the feds taking children from their parents at age five for "educational purposes", the question would be:FatVin wrote:Why are you against fair elections everywhere in America?
"Why are you against educating our children?"
There is nothing in any part of the constitution that gives the Feds the power to tell the states how to conduct their elections, only that they be fair and everyone is treated equally.
I'm just telling you that if it passes, South Carolina or Alabama will appeal it and it will get shitcanned.
Besides, what makes those idiots in D.C. qualified to determine what equipment should be used? The only thing they are good at is:
1. Wasting money (HR550 is a prime example).
2. Blowing things up.
3. Killing people.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
I'm not gonn dignify the Children thing with comment,
I realize I'm talking to somebody who thinks there shoudn't even be a Federal Government
If you've got a better Idea than Voter Verified paper records that will be provided for in HR550 let's hear it. if you don't have a better idea then just shut up.
here are my last words on this subject.
I know you don't like the Federal Gov't micromanaging at that level or managing at any level for that matter but grant me this.
If every vote in every state, county and township isn't verified by the individual voter.
If every vote in every state, county and township isn't counted and can't be recounted if neccessary.
If even one vote in any state, county or township is thrown away or changed or otherwise altered
Then states rights, people rights, none of it means a damn thing,
that's not what I put on a uniform for, so many years ago, and that's not what those kids are dying for in Iraq, right now, and if we don't do everything in our power to ensure the sanctity of our own elections because we're too partisan, too paranoid or too apathtetic then we do not deserve the very blessings of liberty, paid for, in blood, by our veterans and our honored dead. We will not then be worthy of the freedom, we all so prize.
I realize I'm talking to somebody who thinks there shoudn't even be a Federal Government
If you've got a better Idea than Voter Verified paper records that will be provided for in HR550 let's hear it. if you don't have a better idea then just shut up.
here are my last words on this subject.
I know you don't like the Federal Gov't micromanaging at that level or managing at any level for that matter but grant me this.
If every vote in every state, county and township isn't verified by the individual voter.
If every vote in every state, county and township isn't counted and can't be recounted if neccessary.
If even one vote in any state, county or township is thrown away or changed or otherwise altered
Then states rights, people rights, none of it means a damn thing,
that's not what I put on a uniform for, so many years ago, and that's not what those kids are dying for in Iraq, right now, and if we don't do everything in our power to ensure the sanctity of our own elections because we're too partisan, too paranoid or too apathtetic then we do not deserve the very blessings of liberty, paid for, in blood, by our veterans and our honored dead. We will not then be worthy of the freedom, we all so prize.
Blooz to Youz
Here this may help...
Your version of equality is not everyone else's version. What you see as a needed bill, others see wasteful spending.
That's what makes this country great.
There is constantly a struggle between the people and the Fed. Every time someone intreprets that the feds in congress have unlimited powers to do something, that means we the people lose power.
I think we have lost so much of our personal freedom that most of us cannot even recognize or remember what we used to be able to do.
Power corrupts, and I for one do not want to give congress umlimited corruption even in the most inoccuous of bills.
Your version of equality is not everyone else's version. What you see as a needed bill, others see wasteful spending.
That's what makes this country great.
There is constantly a struggle between the people and the Fed. Every time someone intreprets that the feds in congress have unlimited powers to do something, that means we the people lose power.
I think we have lost so much of our personal freedom that most of us cannot even recognize or remember what we used to be able to do.
Power corrupts, and I for one do not want to give congress umlimited corruption even in the most inoccuous of bills.
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Geez Vinny, I did not mean to imply that you would support such a thing. I was using that as an analogy to illustrate that disagreeing with one solution does not mean disagreeing with the desired result.FatVin wrote:I'm not gonn dignify the Children thing with comment
That scenario came to mind because during the 90s, when I worked at PSU, one of the professors I worked with was also (and still is) the State College Council President. One of his and his wife's core beliefs was that the feds should take every child from their parents at school age and train them as good little citizens.
Scary, huh?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
YankeeRose
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Saturday Oct 09, 2004
- Location: Altunea, PA
- Contact:
Go ahead, joke about what Vin wrote, but everyone should realize it's the truth. Iraq is being ensured "fair and legal elections", at American expense, including the ultimate one, is that too much to ask for here? "Corruption" and "spending money"? The "Supreme Court"? HA! The Presidency, Senate, Congress and Supreme Court are ALL Republican controlled. The money trail goes from the Bush family, Cheney, their Corporate cronies, Saudi Arabia and in a neat line right to Iraq, where they're all in it up to their necks, making money hand over fist, but it's BLOOD MONEY. It's disgusting. "I love my country, but fear my Government." Do you know what's STILL being done to any small Environmental progress that was achieved...Dubya started reversing that his very first day in office, again for the sake of $. It's disgusting. Of course, right now his approval rating is up...he spoke a well written speech,
mentioned "the war on terror" several times and "needing to keep us "safe". HA! I'd feel safer knowing I had cleaner air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat - and if one was so inclined, wouldn't it be GREAT if you didn't have to worry about something like Mercury poisoning and could actually eat ALL the Fish you caught in PA? To sum up G.W. Bush's 2 avarice, corruption filled and deadly terms, and all that has come to pass: the first term the even then Republican majority Supreme Court wrongfully handed to him, but the majority of "we the people" sat complacently by...and the second one he stole with the help of his buddies who own the companies who made the machines used in Ohio, again while the majority have sat complacently. If there aren't some controls in place to make sure Elections in this Country are "Fair and Legal", do you really doubt that Jeb Bush "will be" President? Not "can be" or "might decide to run", mind you...it's a done deal.
mentioned "the war on terror" several times and "needing to keep us "safe". HA! I'd feel safer knowing I had cleaner air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat - and if one was so inclined, wouldn't it be GREAT if you didn't have to worry about something like Mercury poisoning and could actually eat ALL the Fish you caught in PA? To sum up G.W. Bush's 2 avarice, corruption filled and deadly terms, and all that has come to pass: the first term the even then Republican majority Supreme Court wrongfully handed to him, but the majority of "we the people" sat complacently by...and the second one he stole with the help of his buddies who own the companies who made the machines used in Ohio, again while the majority have sat complacently. If there aren't some controls in place to make sure Elections in this Country are "Fair and Legal", do you really doubt that Jeb Bush "will be" President? Not "can be" or "might decide to run", mind you...it's a done deal.
A very nice speech written by Michael Moore I'm sure. You ought to sell that one to the DNC. Or has moveon.org and George Soros already written those orders for the democrats.
Try to think for yourself, try to get your information not from partisan sources. Every thing you talk about is exactly the talking points for the extreme liberals in the media today.
I am no fan of Bush, he has let down all conservatives, but believe it or not, not everything the liberal blogs and DNC says about him is true.
He governs much more like a democrat, and your party should recognize that, and welcome him with open arms.
And he is no more corrupt than ANY democrat in the cess pool called D.C.
Try to think for yourself, try to get your information not from partisan sources. Every thing you talk about is exactly the talking points for the extreme liberals in the media today.
I am no fan of Bush, he has let down all conservatives, but believe it or not, not everything the liberal blogs and DNC says about him is true.
He governs much more like a democrat, and your party should recognize that, and welcome him with open arms.
And he is no more corrupt than ANY democrat in the cess pool called D.C.
-
YankeeRose
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Saturday Oct 09, 2004
- Location: Altunea, PA
- Contact:
undercoverjoe wrote:A very nice speech written by Michael Moore I'm sure. You ought to sell that one to the DNC. Or has moveon.org and George Soros already written those orders for the democrats.
Try to think for yourself, try to get your information not from partisan sources. Every thing you talk about is exactly the talking points for the extreme liberals in the media today.
I am no fan of Bush, he has let down all conservatives, but believe it or not, not everything the liberal blogs and DNC says about him is true.
He governs much more like a democrat, and your party should recognize that, and welcome him with open arms.
And he is no more corrupt than ANY democrat in the cess pool called D.C.
ucJoe, you should realize I think for myself...I'm not an "extreme"
anything and my opinions are nobody's but my own, formed by what I've seen in my lifetime and by what is being done, even as we speak, or write, as it were.
Corporations do not need to have Environmental Policies on the release of Toxic Chemicals eased for their "bottom line". Period. Consider your children's future health and that of any Grandchildren you may one day have...it's not just about us in the here and now. As for Moore, I have honestly only read 1 or 2 things he's ever written - I wouldn't know him to pick him out of a line-up - and what he wrote was forwarded to me by a friend just before and just after the last Presidential Election...and here's the shocker...I have no idea who "George Soros" even is! The members of his Cabinet leaving in droves, "jumping ship" was a dead give away to me. Bush has only "let down" Conservatives because he has been caught, all his atrocities are being exposed and it's no longer good to be associated with him...when even Santorum wishes to distance himself, "just in case", you know there's something very wrong! Before more was exposed, not that our own Media will report it, yet, Bush was the Conservative "wonder boy" and "the ends justified the means". Yes, almost all Politicians are corrupt and as BadDazeRob pointed out, if they aren't, after many years they invariably will be...but they are unfortunately a necessary evil...and as I've said before, there is ALWAYS the lesser of two evils. I agree, people should think for themselves, but many people need to learn to think not only OF themselves, as well.
George Soros is the main man responsible for all the mixed up thoughts you have about this country.
He is probably the richest man in the world and admittledly spent over $30 million dollars on the last election trying to defeat Bush. Look it up.
He probably spends much more because of the new Campaign Finance Laws that brain altered John McCain gave us. It is much harder to track political contibutions now and Soros underwrites many of the extreme liberal web sites such as moveon.org and the failed liberal radio experiment, AirAmerica.
Interesting thing is that he is not even an American citizen and is one of the leaders of the One World Movement, trying to do away with soveingtry of nations.
Funny isn't it, that the party that's supposed to be always concerned for the little people is controlled and financed by one of the richest men on the planet. I wonder if he got to be this rich by being totally non-corrupt.
He is probably the richest man in the world and admittledly spent over $30 million dollars on the last election trying to defeat Bush. Look it up.
He probably spends much more because of the new Campaign Finance Laws that brain altered John McCain gave us. It is much harder to track political contibutions now and Soros underwrites many of the extreme liberal web sites such as moveon.org and the failed liberal radio experiment, AirAmerica.
Interesting thing is that he is not even an American citizen and is one of the leaders of the One World Movement, trying to do away with soveingtry of nations.
Funny isn't it, that the party that's supposed to be always concerned for the little people is controlled and financed by one of the richest men on the planet. I wonder if he got to be this rich by being totally non-corrupt.
-
YankeeRose
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Saturday Oct 09, 2004
- Location: Altunea, PA
- Contact:
It didn't matter how much Soros or anyone spent, I said to many that Bush had it "in the bag"...the exit polls, which are very accurate by the way, showed who really won, but the voting machines "worked" just like they were supposed to.
What party is in TOTAL "control" of this Country at the present time? Wow, Senator John McCain, a GREAT American, I might add, must have REALLY gone against Dubya for you to call him "brain altered"! Bless the man...by the way, I'd Vote for him in a heartbeat, but he'll never get as far as being on a ticket, because I can tell that deep down he actually cares about his fellow man...in the Fascist, Corporatist, "new world order", that isn't prudent.
What party is in TOTAL "control" of this Country at the present time? Wow, Senator John McCain, a GREAT American, I might add, must have REALLY gone against Dubya for you to call him "brain altered"! Bless the man...by the way, I'd Vote for him in a heartbeat, but he'll never get as far as being on a ticket, because I can tell that deep down he actually cares about his fellow man...in the Fascist, Corporatist, "new world order", that isn't prudent.
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Yes he does govern like a democrat. Aside from spending like a drunken sailor he starts wars with countries that never attacked the U.S., just like:undercoverjoe wrote:I am no fan of Bush, he has let down all conservatives, but believe it or not, not everything the liberal blogs and DNC says about him is true.
He governs much more like a democrat, and your party should recognize that, and welcome him with open arms.
And he is no more corrupt than ANY democrat in the cess pool called D.C.
FDR declared war on Germany. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman started a war in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
Speaking of JFK. I didn't hear about any whining in 1960 when the mob bought the election for him.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Funny thing about JFK, is that after we was put into office by the illegal democrat political machine that still runs Chicago, he governed like a conservative.
He reduced the tax rates by a percentage almost as much as Reagan did.
He believed in supply side economics and wanted to reduce the capital gains taxes to spur on the economy.
If only George W. would read a little history. But then JFK never made it to a full term....hhhmmmmm..
He reduced the tax rates by a percentage almost as much as Reagan did.
He believed in supply side economics and wanted to reduce the capital gains taxes to spur on the economy.
If only George W. would read a little history. But then JFK never made it to a full term....hhhmmmmm..