Why Not Ask Chirac How Events Are Going in Iraq?

Published on September 23, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Today our darling representatives etched in stone the tax cuts. It reminds me of a hard working couple who just had to have a Widescreen HDTV and dipped into their savings for the children’s future college fund; after all, they can work their way through college. With all the brouhaha about Iraq being the main election issue, apparently congress, unlike Kerry, isn’t worried about where the money is coming from — let our children pay it off. … Where did the idea come from anyway? — if you doubt the war is worth the nation’s treasure and human life that somehow you don’t support the troops. Is it because we don’t want to admit to the 1043 families whose son, daughter or spouse heroically died in a manhunt to put Saddam in jail? … Nader is the nation’s jester who in time of war goes round the country spewing nonsensical gibberish left over from 2000 that the two parties are but Tweedledum and Tweedledee. … If Cat Stevens contributed unwittingly to questionable charity organizations surreptitiously supporting terrorism, how many of the Christian Right unwittingly contributed to bombings of abortion clinics? Moreover if the Cat was really a terrorist why was he allowed on the plane? — so much for feeling safer with Bush at the helm. … Remember “fuzzy math”? Is it somehow related to the fact that 35% of the population are represented by fifty-one senators and 65% — which, by the way, pay 70% of the taxes — are represented by forty-nine? Isn’t something wrong with the equation wherein a state that can only muster one representative and yet have two senators? … It strikes me as weird that Bush needs backing from Allawi to confirm the condition in Iraq is copasetic, but all hell would break loose if Kerry deferred to France’s Chirac to appraise the situation. … Kerry should use the Nixon “strategy” — “a secret plan to win the peace.”

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

expertcoder

on Sep 26, 2004

Remember “fuzzy math”? Is it somehow related to the fact that 35% of the population are represented by fifty-one senators and 65% — which, by the way, pay 70% of the taxes — are represented by forty-nine? Isn’t something wrong with the equation wherein a state that can only muster one representative and yet have two senators?

Our Congress was divided up into the Senate and the House of Representivies, where you need a majority in both houses. I feel that representation is very fair so the States with the low population can have a portion of gorvernment where their concerns would be addressed. While we have the Replublic, I mean the House of Representivies to balance out the popluation needs. It's checks and balances that keeps our country great and strong.

stevendedalus

on Sep 27, 2004

I feel that representation is very fair so the States with the low population can have a portion of gorvernment where their concerns would be addressed.

These low level states also have the responsibility to encourage greater distribution of population, which they don't--they love being an enclave for exclusion.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!