Torog
07-26-2004, 01:18 PM
WELL ... THAT DAMNED SURE GOT THEM RILED UP
Nealz' Nuze ^ | Monday, July 26, 2004 | Neal Boortz
What got them riled up, you say? Me. Friday. Oh boy, you should see the email. Letters to sponsors, radio stations, the Democratic National Committee all pretty much demanding the same thing ... that I be cancelled/fired/executed.
So, why all the fuss? Because I said on Friday that I honestly couldn't make up my mind which group of people was more dangerous to the future of this country: (a) Islamic jihadist terrorists; or, (b) people who intended to vote for The Poodle for president.
It seems that some of the more strident complainers were convinced that I had compared Kerry voters to Islamic terrorists. This quality of thought is pretty much what you would expect from someone who would cast a Democratic ballot, but for those of you who did manage the incredible feat of graduating from a government school .. let's put that to rest. You can die if someone fires an apple at your head at 150 miles per hour. You can also die if someone drops a Volkswagen on you. Either the apple or the VW can be dangerous, but that does not mean that apples and VWs are alike. Ergo ... saying that both Kerry voters and Islamic terrorist can be dangerous is not necessarily comparing one to the other. I know that's a bit tough for you government school grads, but if you read this paragraph a few times I'm sure you'll get the idea.
Now ... let's deal with the question of whether or not I was out of line suggesting that Kerry voters, as a group, could possibly be as or more dangerous to this country as, say, whatever remains of al Qaeda.
First question: Can voters actually be dangerous? That's a hanging curve ball. Hitler was elected in Germany. Nuff said.
So ... second question. Can Kerry voters be dangerous. Well now that would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? My opinion is that they very well can be, especially if there are enough of them out there to actually put Mr. Paper Cut Purple Heart into the White House with his trial lawyer pal. I consider Kerry to be dangerous to the future of our Republic, to freedom and to economic liberty. You may disagree. So be it. Consider, though, my reasoning. Here's a brief list of the threats Kerry poses to our country, not necessarily in the order of their severity.
1. Kerry is soft on sovereignty. As Boston Herald columnist Cosmo Macero says: "Never has the dilution of U.S. Sovereignty been so boldly forecast." This is a man who said that the United States should not deploy troops overseas without the "permission" of the United Nations. He made no exceptions. He stated it as a hard and fast rule. Do we want a president who seeks the permission of the United Nations before he can act in what he believes to be the best interests of the United States? Oh .. to be sure, Kerry wouldn't dare make this statement today. He's running for office! Tell me ... just when do you think a person speaks his true mind? Hint: It's not when he's in the middle of the campaign. Remember ... Kerry has instructed Democrats to hold back on their anti-war statements during the convention. He knows that many of the voters he wants to convince approve of the liberation of Iraq. He also knows that most of the voters don't think the UN should have veto power over US military deployments. Believe him now at your peril.
2. Kerry is an appeaser. Kerry knows that many of the principal members of the European Union want to build the strength of that body on the declining weakness of America. The leaders of these countries are quite upset over George Bush's show of strength in the Middle East. They knew the threat was there, but it was a threat they didn't have the courage to face. The US did. The US is showing strength, Europe is showing weakness. Naturally this is going to breed bitterness toward our country. Kerry wants to address and moderate this bitterness by weakening America through a policy of appeasement.
3. Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal. Just recently Microsoft announced that it was going to distribute $32 billion ... that's with a "B" ... in Microsoft cash to shareholders via a dividend. Give The Poodle his way and the dividend, which has already been taxed by the Imperial Federal Government, will be taxed again when it reaches the shareholder. How nice. Kerry's spending plans, if enacted, would essentially double the size of the federal government. Virtually every economist out there not working for the government credits Bush's tax cuts with our economic turnaround. Raising taxes is a good way to stop our economy in its tracks.
4. Kerry sends a message of weakness. Islamic terrorists are emboldened when they believe their enemies to be weak. Disagree if you wish, but there's a school of thought out there which believes that the election of John Kerry would send a signal to the wonderful world of Islamic terrorism that America is once again ripe for an attack. I attend that school. How many Americans will die when Kerry brings us the era of appeasement?
5. Kerry sends a message of government dependency. Whatever you need, the government is there to provide it for you. Kerry is pressing the concept of health care as a right. This means that the person in need of health care would have, under a Kerry regime, an enforceable right to a portion of the life of some health care provider somewhere. If health care is a right, what else? The right to a home? The right to a job?
I've said it before, but here we go again for the record. We're in the middle of World War IV. bin Laden has pledged to kill as many Americans as he can. He has even set a goal of four million. Will you be one of those? How about a member of your family? The Democrats are going to nominate a man who was opposed to removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. A man who voted for the Iraq war, and then voted to deny the funding our troops needed to pursue that action. The Democrats are nominating a man who believes that the United Nations should have veto power over American military moves. A man who would weaken the American economy through ratification of the Kyoto Treaty and the imposition of tax increases on the very people who are now powering our economic revival.
Kerry is dangerous. Anyone who would put him in power is dangerous. Islamic jihadists are dangerous. The question as to which group presents a greater threat to our Republic, to our freedoms and economic liberty is a valid one. I suspect that some Kerry voters are just a wee bit uncomfortable with the possible consequences of their actions.
Nealz' Nuze ^ | Monday, July 26, 2004 | Neal Boortz
What got them riled up, you say? Me. Friday. Oh boy, you should see the email. Letters to sponsors, radio stations, the Democratic National Committee all pretty much demanding the same thing ... that I be cancelled/fired/executed.
So, why all the fuss? Because I said on Friday that I honestly couldn't make up my mind which group of people was more dangerous to the future of this country: (a) Islamic jihadist terrorists; or, (b) people who intended to vote for The Poodle for president.
It seems that some of the more strident complainers were convinced that I had compared Kerry voters to Islamic terrorists. This quality of thought is pretty much what you would expect from someone who would cast a Democratic ballot, but for those of you who did manage the incredible feat of graduating from a government school .. let's put that to rest. You can die if someone fires an apple at your head at 150 miles per hour. You can also die if someone drops a Volkswagen on you. Either the apple or the VW can be dangerous, but that does not mean that apples and VWs are alike. Ergo ... saying that both Kerry voters and Islamic terrorist can be dangerous is not necessarily comparing one to the other. I know that's a bit tough for you government school grads, but if you read this paragraph a few times I'm sure you'll get the idea.
Now ... let's deal with the question of whether or not I was out of line suggesting that Kerry voters, as a group, could possibly be as or more dangerous to this country as, say, whatever remains of al Qaeda.
First question: Can voters actually be dangerous? That's a hanging curve ball. Hitler was elected in Germany. Nuff said.
So ... second question. Can Kerry voters be dangerous. Well now that would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? My opinion is that they very well can be, especially if there are enough of them out there to actually put Mr. Paper Cut Purple Heart into the White House with his trial lawyer pal. I consider Kerry to be dangerous to the future of our Republic, to freedom and to economic liberty. You may disagree. So be it. Consider, though, my reasoning. Here's a brief list of the threats Kerry poses to our country, not necessarily in the order of their severity.
1. Kerry is soft on sovereignty. As Boston Herald columnist Cosmo Macero says: "Never has the dilution of U.S. Sovereignty been so boldly forecast." This is a man who said that the United States should not deploy troops overseas without the "permission" of the United Nations. He made no exceptions. He stated it as a hard and fast rule. Do we want a president who seeks the permission of the United Nations before he can act in what he believes to be the best interests of the United States? Oh .. to be sure, Kerry wouldn't dare make this statement today. He's running for office! Tell me ... just when do you think a person speaks his true mind? Hint: It's not when he's in the middle of the campaign. Remember ... Kerry has instructed Democrats to hold back on their anti-war statements during the convention. He knows that many of the voters he wants to convince approve of the liberation of Iraq. He also knows that most of the voters don't think the UN should have veto power over US military deployments. Believe him now at your peril.
2. Kerry is an appeaser. Kerry knows that many of the principal members of the European Union want to build the strength of that body on the declining weakness of America. The leaders of these countries are quite upset over George Bush's show of strength in the Middle East. They knew the threat was there, but it was a threat they didn't have the courage to face. The US did. The US is showing strength, Europe is showing weakness. Naturally this is going to breed bitterness toward our country. Kerry wants to address and moderate this bitterness by weakening America through a policy of appeasement.
3. Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal. Just recently Microsoft announced that it was going to distribute $32 billion ... that's with a "B" ... in Microsoft cash to shareholders via a dividend. Give The Poodle his way and the dividend, which has already been taxed by the Imperial Federal Government, will be taxed again when it reaches the shareholder. How nice. Kerry's spending plans, if enacted, would essentially double the size of the federal government. Virtually every economist out there not working for the government credits Bush's tax cuts with our economic turnaround. Raising taxes is a good way to stop our economy in its tracks.
4. Kerry sends a message of weakness. Islamic terrorists are emboldened when they believe their enemies to be weak. Disagree if you wish, but there's a school of thought out there which believes that the election of John Kerry would send a signal to the wonderful world of Islamic terrorism that America is once again ripe for an attack. I attend that school. How many Americans will die when Kerry brings us the era of appeasement?
5. Kerry sends a message of government dependency. Whatever you need, the government is there to provide it for you. Kerry is pressing the concept of health care as a right. This means that the person in need of health care would have, under a Kerry regime, an enforceable right to a portion of the life of some health care provider somewhere. If health care is a right, what else? The right to a home? The right to a job?
I've said it before, but here we go again for the record. We're in the middle of World War IV. bin Laden has pledged to kill as many Americans as he can. He has even set a goal of four million. Will you be one of those? How about a member of your family? The Democrats are going to nominate a man who was opposed to removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. A man who voted for the Iraq war, and then voted to deny the funding our troops needed to pursue that action. The Democrats are nominating a man who believes that the United Nations should have veto power over American military moves. A man who would weaken the American economy through ratification of the Kyoto Treaty and the imposition of tax increases on the very people who are now powering our economic revival.
Kerry is dangerous. Anyone who would put him in power is dangerous. Islamic jihadists are dangerous. The question as to which group presents a greater threat to our Republic, to our freedoms and economic liberty is a valid one. I suspect that some Kerry voters are just a wee bit uncomfortable with the possible consequences of their actions.