A heartwrenching letter from a Kerry supporter

[jeskibuff]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind. I lost my job this past year. When Clinton was president I was secure and prosperous, but in the last year, we had to close our operations.

We simply could not compete with foreign labor. This foreign labor worked for low pay under very bad conditions.

They worked very long shifts, and many even died on the job.

This competition could hardly be called "fair." I was forced out of the place where I had worked for 34 years.

Not a single government program was there to help me.

How can Bush call himself "compassionate?" Far worse, I lost two of my sons in Bush's evil war in Iraq. They gave their lives for their country, and for what? So that Bush's oil buddies can get rich. My pain of losing my sons is indescribable.

While it is trivial next to the loss of my sons, I regret to say that I also lost my home. I simply have nothing left. How can Bush call himself a Christian when he neglects people like me? I am a senior citizen with various medical problems. I'm not in a position where I can begin a new career. I was reduced to the point where I had to live in a hole in a ground, all because of President Bush.

And when the authorities found me there, did they have any compassion for my misfortune and ailments? No, I was arrested. Mr. Bush, I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a compassionate man! I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a Christian! If I had any money left, I would donate it to the Democrat Party. I now support Kerry for President.

If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my dear sons!

Regards, Saddam Hussein

Found here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066001/posts) ;)

[Justlisten2]

You're absolutely correct. If Al Gore was elected by the electorial college (he was elected by the people), you'd still have your sons and your job, and we'd still have our twin towers. I guess we're all losers with Dubya in office. :mad:

[jeskibuff]

You're absolutely correct. If Al Gore was elected by the electorial college (he was elected by the people), you'd still have your sons and your job, and we'd still have our twin towers. I guess we're all losers with Dubya in office. :mad:

1) Fortunately, the electoral process is the set of rules that our national elections run on and prevented us from getting that dolt into office. Please read up on the electoral process and you'll find it has MANY positives that provide an equal voice across our country.

2) So, are you saying that the WTC would still be standing if Gore was President? What leads you to THAT conclusion?

3) Democrats and Dictators...if you fall into one of those categories, then YES...you're a loser while Dubya's in office. Get yourself prepared for 4 more years of "loser" status if that's the case! :D

4) Are you one of those who believe that Iraq was there for Saddam to abuse at his pleasure? That if it weren't for GWB, he and his sons could continue merrily torturing and executing their countrymen whenever they wanted? That it's the right of a nation's leader to govern that nation in whatever manner he pleased?

[JSE]

"If Al Gore was elected by the electorial college (he was elected by the people), you'd still have your sons and your job, and we'd still have our twin towers."

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Really, I would like to hear it. I guess I/we can infer that you mean terrorist only targeted us because President Bush was in office. Is that what your saying because that's what it sounds like?

Please, I want to hear your reasoning!

JSE

[jeskibuff]

So, are you saying that the WTC would still be standing if Gore was President? What leads you to THAT conclusion?

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Really, I would like to hear it. I guess I/we can infer that you mean terrorist only targeted us because President Bush was in office. Is that what your saying because that's what it sounds like?
Great minds think alike, JSE! :D

[Justlisten2]

Dubya's number one priority when elected was to find a way to get Saddam. It was on the agenda at his first National Security Council meeting. Now if only he could find a way to get the American public behind him, in his quest to clear his daddy's mess. Do I think he's behind 9/11? No, it took too much planning for someone of his modest intellectual abilities. Do I think the government had info about the attacks and allowed them to happen anyway, ala Pearl Harbor, possibly. Pre-9/11 America wouldn't have stood for Dubya's agenda. Now he gets them all in his corner, hmmm. I wouldn't put it past the government to sacrifice American lives to get their agenda rolling. That may seem like f%^&ed up thinking to you, but it's no more f%^&ed up thinking than beleiveing that Hussein was a world danger. When I heard comparisons to Hitler..hahahahahaha. I held a guitar once, but I'm not Bruce Springsteen.

Sadly, you are probably correct about the monkey getting re-elected. The country's been going to he!! since Reaganomics. 24 years later I'm still waiting for the trickle-down. Really, I just envy Republicans, I just wish I could afford to vote for one. All the wars, the gun nuts and the right-for-lifers, I could live with, if I had the money. Although it does amuse me that one party won't let you kill them at birth (right to life) but will let you kill later on (death penalty), while the other party will let you kill them at birth (pro-choice) but not afterwards (death penalty). Don't you just think that one party would be for killing and the other party against it, period? That would be too simple. ;)

[Bryan]

Let us put this in perspective. Members of Congress who saw the evidence for the war with Iraq did not oppose it until after the fact. The UN instituted resolution 1441 and Iraq failed to comply with it. We had been amassing troops in the Middle East for 15 months prior to going in. Hussein had every opportunity to open up his country but refused to do so. Hindsight is always 20/20 and right now it is still too early to say if the war was just. What would people say if those WMDs turn up in Iran, Lebenon, and Syria? Because of 9/11 we went to war against terrorists and those who support terrorism. Whether you agree with the war or not is one thing. However, it is done and it was justified.

Still would be interesting to see what Gore would had done had he been in office. Ironically enough, the answer, more often than not, is either exactly what Bush did or something else without ever specifying what that something else was.


Although it does amuse me that one party won't let you kill them at birth (right to life) but will let you kill later on (death penalty),

And what, exactly, is wrong with killing people who have willfully commited premeditated murder?


while the other party will let you kill them at birth (pro-choice) but not afterwards (death penalty).

Here you are referring to partial birth abortion. If the doctor doesn't perform the abortion prior to the head coming out the baby would be born alive and perfectly fine. Of course, this is a subject for a different time.

[JSE]

Justlisten2,


So your saying Bush let 9/11 happen or at least ignored the warning signs on purpose just so he could get support for going into Iraq? I guess conspiracy theorist like yourself would like to believe that but as you mentioned, how could someone of such "modest intellectual abilities" be able to pull this off. I just can't see any American President sitting around and coming up with a plan that would kill thousands of Americans. I think you have been watching to many movies.

In regard to the twin towers, do you think Gore would have been able to stop 9/11? Mr. Gore and Clinton never tried to stop terrorism while they were in office, what makes you think Gore would have done so after he was elected?

"Really, I just envy Republicans, I just wish I could afford to vote for one. "

Why can't you afford to vote for one? Are you saying if you had more money you would vote Republican? I know, the lower taxes which put more money in your pocket make it hard? It's funny, several studies have shown that the combined of wealth of Democrats in Washinton far exceeds the combined wealth of Republicans. It's also funny that Democrats are always crying about the top 1%. I wonder how many Democrats are in the top 1%? Hmmm? Do you really think a Democrat would so something to hurt their own wealth? Do you really think the Democrats care about the middle and lower classes? Just something to think about.

JSE

[piece-it pete]

Dubya's number one priority when elected was to find a way to get Saddam. It was on the agenda at his first National Security Council meeting. Now if only he could find a way to get the American public behind him, in his quest to clear his daddy's mess. Do I think he's behind 9/11? No, it took too much planning for someone of his modest intellectual abilities. Do I think the government had info about the attacks and allowed them to happen anyway, ala Pearl Harbor, possibly. Pre-9/11 America wouldn't have stood for Dubya's agenda. Now he gets them all in his corner, hmmm. I wouldn't put it past the government to sacrifice American lives to get their agenda rolling. That may seem like f%^&ed up thinking to you, but it's no more f%^&ed up thinking than beleiveing that Hussein was a world danger. When I heard comparisons to Hitler..hahahahahaha. I held a guitar once, but I'm not Bruce Springsteen.

Sadly, you are probably correct about the monkey getting re-elected. The country's been going to he!! since Reaganomics. 24 years later I'm still waiting for the trickle-down. Really, I just envy Republicans, I just wish I could afford to vote for one. All the wars, the gun nuts and the right-for-lifers, I could live with, if I had the money. Although it does amuse me that one party won't let you kill them at birth (right to life) but will let you kill later on (death penalty), while the other party will let you kill them at birth (pro-choice) but not afterwards (death penalty). Don't you just think that one party would be for killing and the other party against it, period? That would be too simple. ;)

I'm somewhat surprised that many people consider Iraq to be a Bush thing, simply because we (meaning the community of nations under the rule of law - not neccessarily the UN) had to remove the threat to Saudi Arabia in order to address one of the largest root causes of Al Quida terrorism. I remember, in my revisionist memory, that the Dean/Kusinich crowd, with media support, was SCREAMING about addressing root causes as we prepared to invade Afganistan. Remember the Arab "street"?

I am cynical enough to believe it is being used by Bushs' enemies even though they know we had to deal with Saddam, harming our cause by spreading doubt.

This is much more pausible than a sitting President blowing down the WTC. Evidence: the overwhelming vote supporting the invasion of Iraq.


It says a lot about the intellectual abilities of the current Dem leadership if they can't beat a monkey. (I have to admit, I like saying that:).


To say that we (the US) as a whole are not more weathy now than in 1980 is to deny the evidence of our senses. Reaganomics worked - Clinton didn't succeed in rolling it back - and now it's Clinton prosperity. Go figure.


I'm in agreement with Bryan about the death penalty and abortion being a topic for another post, but since you brought it up :), what is more illogical: saving babies & executing murderers; or executing babies & saving murderers?

Pete

[Justlisten2]

The irony I was trying to point out with the two parties killing now or later is IMHO, murder is murder. It doesn't matter when or where or who. Thou shalt not kill, period. Sorry, but that's the way I was raised. I know there are different schools of thought, and some were raised differently. I just find it ironic that both parties support and oppose murder, it's just a matter of timing. I would think one party would be against murder and the other for it, but you're right, that's another thread.

JSE, yes, you read me right, if I made double what I make now, I might vote republican. As for tax cuts putting money in my pocket, please stop, I'm ROTFLMAO. I can't afford another tax cut. All these lying politicians yapping about tax cuts. Federal taxes get cut, local taxes go up, local taxes get cut real estate taxes go up. You're still losing the money, you just voted for the guy who said he'd stop taking the money out of your front left pocket. While your smiling and happy, they're taking more out of your right rear pocket. It's all just an illusion. Political version of David Copperfield. As for not beleiving any conspiracy theory, our government thanks you. It certainly makes covert operations that much easier. 'nuff said.

piece-it-pete, don't get your panties in a bunch, I didn't vote for Gore either, I voted for Nader (Green Party). Some may say it a wasted vote, but neither party suits me. The Republicans are the party the rich love, while the Democrats are the party the rich can tolerate. Both candidates are bought and paid for before you step into the voting booth. It's really just simple economics. If you(or I) need to raise $100MM for campaign funds, you (or I) would rather approach 1000 people looking for $100M donations than approach 1MM people looking for $100 donation. It's quicker and easier. Now that you're elected and in office, it only makes sense to perform for those generous few that donated so righteously to your cause. What I'd really like to see is another revolution, where the common folk of this once great nation rise up and take their country back from big business, special interest and the rich. F*%# the lobbyist. The Constitution didn't say anything about no f*%#ing lobbyist. I know I'm a dreamer, it'll never happen, especially because we're all too busy working two jobs to get by. Who has time to revolt? I'm lucky if I have the time to clean and spin a LP. I do remember how strong the working class used to be. I remember when we didn't have to pay a dime for medical benefits or towards retirement. When one income raised a family of nine children. Ah, those were the days.............. :cool:

[jeskibuff]

Looks like I tapped into Republican National HQNo...but it should be a refreshing change from the intellectually-starved DemocraticUnderground where it looks like you may be getting most of your theories from! :D

I was trying to point out with the two parties killing now or later is IMHO, murder is murder. It doesn't matter when or where or who.
Well that's just simplifying it a little too much, isn't it? It completely removes the question of "innocent or guilty?", doesn't it? I have no problem with us tossing Saddam into the middle of a crowd of angry Shiites. He most likely would be ripped to shreds and would get to feel a small sample of the pain he inflicted on millions of other people before he died. I would consider that justice, despite its savage barbarity. He would have deserved it, because he was truly guilty. But...a baby not yet out of the womb not getting a chance to do wrong or right? How can you even equate two such "murders"? By lumping the two together under one heading, you definitely miss the distinction.

Federal taxes get cut, local taxes go up, local taxes get cut real estate taxes go up.Well, you've got a point there. That DOES happen, but just because one taxing authority does the right thing (in this case, the Feds) doesn't ensure that the local authority will follow suit. Taxing authorities will look for ANY excuse to raise taxes, and if they can blame it on someone else, they'll seize the opportunity. Heaven forbid that they just clean up the waste in their own organization. I'm currently contracted to a government agency and have just implemented a program that, had it been implemented last year would have saved over $566 million dollars lost to fraud. That's taxpayer money that could have gone to fixing infrastructure, etc. That's just ONE identified fraudulent scheme, mind you! Anyway...it's rare when tollbooths are removed or taxes are lowered. That shouldn't justify building other tollbooths or raising other taxes.

As for not beleiving any conspiracy theory, our government thanks you.As for believing in these bizarre conspiracy theories, Osama Bin Laden, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and many other terrorist organizations thank YOU! They must be having laughing fits as they read all the silly stories blaming Bush for 9/11! "Stupid Americans", they probably say! "We kill them and they blame their leaders! Can it get any better than this?"

By the way...am I understanding you correctly when you say Bush knew about 9/11 and "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP, in DU terms)?? Is this your answer to my question: "are you saying that the WTC would still be standing if Gore was President?" If so, I find that theory abysmally ridiculous. It shows no comprehension whatsoever of the complexities of national intelligence assessments. It shows no idea about the volume of information that has to be sifted by our government and the merit and weight that must be given to each risk assessment. Yes, it's convenient in hindsight to say "there was a specific warning about attacks using commercial aircraft as missiles", but when there are 1,000 other "specific warnings" on your desk and the event HASN'T happened yet, isn't that like walking into a casino and knowing which slot machine is about to hit the jackpot? It's easy to see AFTER the reels have lined up, but before that happens the machines all look pretty much the same, don't they?

I wouldn't put it past the government to sacrifice American lives to get their agenda rolling.Well, I wouldn't put it past Islamic fundamentalists to sacrifice the life of ANY "infidel" (American,Russian,Indian,Filipino,etc.) that doesn't believe in the "almighty Allah". That's been going on for decades, well before Bush was even born. So has Bush been coordinating this whole scenario ever since he crapped his first diaper? Do you subscribe to Michael Mooron's belief that "there is no such thing as terrorism", that 9/11 was just "one of those bad things that happens every couple of years"??

Now that you're elected and in office, it only makes sense to perform for those generous few that donated so righteously to your cause.I will agree with you here. This is why I believe campaign finance reform is one of the prime goals we should try to attain. McCain deserves an A+ for his effort in this area, IMO. The "performance" isn't guaranteed, though. Clinton took a lot of money from a poor Indian tribe, but they got nothing from their "investment". How about Gore's Buddhist temple fiasco? Face it...politicians will grab whatever money they can get...they'll make promises and assurances, but they're really just interested in the money. Your investment may get you closer to getting your voice heard by a powerful politician, but you may not get exactly what you had hoped you were "buying".

we're all too busy working two jobs to get by. Who has time to revolt? I'm lucky if I have the time to clean and spin a LP. I do remember how strong the working class used to be. I remember when we didn't have to pay a dime for medical benefits or towards retirement. When one income raised a family of nine children. Ah, those were the days.Yes, times have changed, but whose fault is that? Women began entering the job market in the 50s. That was good and bad. It was good for women to have their own careers, but that lessened the demand for workers...a classic case of "supply and demand". Who are you blaming for "working two jobs to get by"?? What did you do with your high school education? Did you go to college? What did you major in? Maybe you want to blame everyone else for your employment status when you probably should blame yourself for your own choices made in life. Hey, if I were 18 years old again, I know that I would make different choices than I made back then, but I have mostly myself to blame!

Times change...the market evolves. Cars put horse-drawn carriage makers out of business. Calculators knocked out the slide rule manufacturing industry. The digital camera revolution caused Kodak to just lay off thousands of employees. Do you want to go back to the days of horse-and-buggy, slide rules and roll film? Not me!
If you don't adapt to change, you'll be left behind, just bitter that the world has changed while you stood still.

[Bryan]

The irony I was trying to point out with the two parties killing now or later is IMHO, murder is murder. It doesn't matter when or where or who. Thou shalt not kill, period. Sorry, but that's the way I was raised. I know there are different schools of thought, and some were raised differently. I just find it ironic that both parties support and oppose murder, it's just a matter of timing. I would think one party would be against murder and the other for it, but you're right, that's another thread.

Just a point of clarification here. Since you say 'Thou shalt not kill' you must take into account where it comes from. Ironically, the dealth penalty is supported in the Bible. Anything from premartial sex to adultry and murder (typically it was death by stoning). Children do not fully understand the consequences of their actions whereas teenagers and adults do. Executing someone who has commited premeditated murder is one thing. Killing a child just prior to coming out of the womb is another. Sadly both have the same end result even though one is just and the other isn't.

[JSE]

Justlisten2,

"JSE, yes, you read me right, if I made double what I make now, I might vote republican. As for tax cuts putting money in my pocket, please stop, I'm ROTFLMAO. I can't afford another tax cut. All these lying politicians yapping about tax cuts. Federal taxes get cut, local taxes go up, local taxes get cut real estate taxes go up. You're still losing the money, you just voted for the guy who said he'd stop taking the money out of your front left pocket. While your smiling and happy, they're taking more out of your right rear pocket."

Or you could look at it as, You now have more money in your pocket to pay those other taxes. Either way, your better off. Let's take Houston, where I live, as an example. Local taxes have been going through the roof. Not because the Fed. gave us a tax cut, but because local goverment (Mayor) can't balance a budget to save his life. Our city has seen 6 years of chaos in terms of local finances. We just elected a new Mayor who seems to be trying to solve our local problems, so far.

I don't think it's fare to say local taxes go up due entirely to Fed. tax cuts. Taxes here in Houston have been going up for the last ten years or so. I'm glad I have the extra money from Fed. tax cuts to pay the increased local taxes that would have gone up regardless. I guess it's all how you look at it. You can take a negative view or you can take the positive view. I prefer the positive. You would be amazed what an influence that has on one's life.

JSE

[Justlisten2]

This really is far more time then I cared to invest in the first place.

JSE, see I do see local taxes going up as a direct reflection of federal tax cuts. The federal government cuts taxes and passes the buck to the states, which then pass the buck to the cities and municipalities. One way or the other, you will pay. Your Houston taxes would go down if the federal tax went up. Your mayor can't balance the budget because the federal government keeps dumping more programs into his/her lap, so they can trim their fat. One more thing to clear up on taxes, both Republicans AND Democrats spend money, it's just a difference of tax and spend (Dems) or borrow and spend (Reps). Watch the national deficit when the Republicans are in the white house and you will understand this. It's just a matter of cash or credit.

Bryan, what part of 'Thou Shalt not Kill' confuses you. There is no reference to just or unjust murder. 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'. It's just a matter of whether you are a believer of the Old Testament (Eye for an Eye) or the New Testament (Turn the other cheek). The latter may be tougher to do, but the easy way is not always the right way. I know others feel differently, but I'm against murder, be it a American or Iraqi. That's what all those years of Catholic school do to you, blame my parents, they raised me to believe in the 10 Commandments. I'm not perfect, I am human, but I try my best to live my life around them.

jeskibuff,
I won't bother picking through your post like you do mine. Suffice it to say that I believe Bush MAY have had knowledge. I can't say for sure, as I wasn't there. It is not an uncommon practice for the bully to allow the challenger to throw the first punch, so that he can say he didn't start it. Happens on every playground. There is enough information out there now to have a pretty good feel that our government had warnings about Pearl Harbor. If we stop it, then there is argument over whether to go to war or not. Don't stop it, and there's no argument, fight's on. You probably also believe that Oswald acted alone. After all, Specter's 'magic bullet theory' is just good physics. My take on that is that history will look back on the Kennedy assasination the way it views the death of Ceaser. We are still too close to the flame to see the fire. History will be the true judge. In Ceasar's time they probably told the public it was a lone assassin. Politicians, be it in our time or the past, will 'spin' reality to what they want the public to know. Hence the public is left only knowing what the politicians want them to know. You and I will be long gone before history will pass it's final judgement over what really happened on 9/11. I condemn the actions of those responsible, just like I condemn the actions of the revenge. Revenge never ends, it's hard to know where it starts. I know it didn't start on 9/11 though, that was simply part of the revenge cycle.

That's much longer than I needed or wanted to go on. Call me intellectually challenged if it makes you feel better. It really doesn't matter to me.

Peace out,
John :D