Crawford Tx. Newspaper endorses KERRY!!!

Until there is a VIABLE third option, which there is not. Or until they start going by the popular vote or change the electoral college.

AVL1984

 

That is not true. Go to:

www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

The national debt increased every year that Bill Clinton was in office. The only way a "balanced" budget was arrived at was by including the current yearly Social Security surplus to mask the true yearly overall deficit. But this surplus was spent at well and IOUs placed in the Social Security trust fund. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly, Ken, and the sneaky snake slick Willy really had a lot of people deceived. Truly, there was NO surplus, and I don't believe there ever will be, despite John F (FlipFlop) Kerry's promises, and GW's too.

AVL1984

 

AVL, what do you think of Bush's wild spending spree?

 

Pa Jim, I have stated where I stand.

AVL1984

 

I missed it, can you restate it, or point me to it?

 

It is five posts above your last post, I believe..."He may have increased spending"

AVL1984

 

Sorry, I missed that post entirely.

Perhaps I misread your political orientation. Although, if you think that federal control over education is good, and that hundreds of billions of dollars increase in social programs is "maybe increasing spending on some social programs" (accurate paraphrase), I'm wondering why you wouldn't just join the Democrats.

On the other hand, if you like their policies, I have to admit that Bush is more successful in implementing them then any Democrat ever.

You're fortunate, though, because it's likely that either Bush or Kerry will win in November, and I think you'll be happy with either, policy-wise.

 

Pa Jim says:&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You're fortunate, though, because it's likely that either Bush or Kerry will win in November, and I think you'll be happy with either, policy-wise.

AVL&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It is definite that one of the two will win (BUSH). Do I agree or will I agree with all of his policies? No, I highly doubt it. I don't agree with all of his policies now. I don't believe I'd be happy with flip-flop as president.

AVL1984

 

TL,

The text is from the "Iconoclast", but the link you provided is from the Miami Herald. What am I missing?

 

John, Gene gave the actual link to the hometown paper a few links down from the post by TL on page 1.

AVL1984

 

Got it ... my bad.

 

Until there is a VIABLE third option, which there is not. Or until they start going by the popular vote or change the electoral college.

AVL1984 </font>[/QUOTE]Therein lies the problem: there will be no viable option as long as you keep going along. You are cementing their hold on the process.

 

Not so, Pa Jim. A viable option must be able to present itself, and it seems the "little boys" can't even effectively do that. The only one who seems to be making any headway is Badnarik, though Nader is making SOME headway. I don't even see Pertoutka taking out any TV ads, and here in TN, I haven't seen ONE...NOT ONE....newspaper advertisement. Word of mouth just doesn't cut it.

AVL1984

 

Sort of a Catch-22, isn't it. A minor party candidate doesn't make headway because he doesn't have the money, and he doesn't have the money because he doesn't make headway.

The only reason Ross Perot made headway was because he could finance his own campaign. Therefore, the only way for a Constitution or Libertarian or Green Party candidate to make headway is to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and pay his own way.

 

This is true, Ken. The bad part about Perot was his inability to stay the course the first time he threw his hat into the ring, instead leaving the path, then re-entering with some lame story. That made me lose interest in him real quick. He was definitely right about NAFTA.....

AVL1984

 

When Mr. Perot was at his zenith in April - June 1992 I remember Bill Clinton being down to about 23% in the polls. Commentators were talking about the Democratic Party perhaps going out of existence as a national party.

 

Yes, I remember that well. My uncle and aunt were going to vote democrat until Perot came in....but then when he wavered, that was it for them. They saw in him a great alternative to the democratic party, as did many others. I had considered him, as I wasn't really a fan of Bush 41 at that time. He had lied "READ MY LIPS! NO NEW TAXES!!" The dems still seem to be defeating their own purpose with all of this hatred and rage they are trying to project.

AVL1984

 

Until he backed out, I was definitely on the Perot bandwagon. I did not vote for George H.W. Bush in 1988. I wrote in Jack Kemp.

 

Kemp would have been a better option.

 

But Kemp is basically a statist also, not a constitutionalist. He pushes "cradle to grave" socialism.

AVL, If your objection to Peroutka is that he has so little exposure, and you think that Nader and Badnarik have an acceptable level, why not vote for Badnarik?