Replies

"But I sorta agree with the first two responses, your uncle's opinion will not be changed with facts"

I appreciate this, but actually his opinions do and have changed on occassion. I guess, one thing I'm interested in, his arguments are pretty typical of the left and I'd like some ammo for future reference. I understand that some people are beyond reach, and that's fine, but a lot of middle-ground people buy into this kind of thing or are at least influenced enough by it to change their votes, i.e. "where there's smoke there must be fire" etc. 367 votes in a battleground state can make a difference, and I fully expect to go to one of those states around election time, and while there I will talk with as many people as I can.

"I would just ask the putz uncle of yours to back his stupid claims up with facts and end with why he so fiercly HATES a Pres. trying to defend his right to hate "

Yes, agree.

But as an example there's one thing he says at the beginning, the whole "he lost the election" thing. I know that some news organizations went into Florida and had their own recounts, where Bush won in like 94 out of the 99 scenarious. Does anyone know where I can dig up that information? other things like that, factual things. He's an attorney and it gets under his skin when I cite facts that he can't refute.

"I'd like some ammo for future reference."

Ok, let's start with his assertion that Bush was elected by the Supreme Court (in essence - I'm just cutting to the chase). Remind him that an independent panel of newspapers (mostly left) conducted their own recount of the Florida votes in 2001 and concluded, without a doubt, that there was no way that Gore won the election. Applying every possible scenario they could conjure, this independent panel of newspapers determined beyond a doubt that Bush won the election fairly in Florida - NOT Gore; and the SCOTUS did not "anoint" him.

Taxes - ask him where taxes come from. When he works for a client, he gets paid a fee. Because of the income taxes in this country, the government automatically confiscates a portion of that fee in taxes. That is his money they took; he worked for it, they didn't. In other scenarios, this is called stealing. In the US, it's called income taxes. When Bush cut taxes for the "richest 1%", he allowed more people to keep more of their own money. The "richest 1%" line is a demonstrable lie, btw. The Dems portray it that way to incite class warfare. In Demspeak, the "richest 1%" includes anyone who has a job and pays taxes - those are the folks who got a tax cut. Those who don't pay any tax (now almost 50% of the working population) got a "tax credit" (wealth redistribution) so they wouldn't feel bad about being left out of a tax cut they don't deserve. Ask your uncle what he did with his tax cut. If he feels that strongly about it, he should continue paying at the higher rate to prevent the government from going broke. IOW, tell him to put his money where his mouth is. I'm betting that he joined every other taxpayer and kept his tax cut and spent it on something that HE wanted to buy, rather than letting the government spend it for him.

Try that for starters.

I'll keep this in mind. If I come up with anything to contribute to your side of the debate I'll send it on to you. Good Luck!

PS My brother and I don't discuss politics. Due to his busy life with his children and church and work his only information appears to be one of the alphabet local news channels. When he used to make bold statements concerning politics and I would put forth something I had read or seen on a station other than his that totally contradicted him he'd get defensive and refuse further discussion. For all the other things that he does do well and for smooth family visits I've left him in his blissful ingnorance.

I and Clinton himself made sure my brother did not vote Clinton a second time.