Given these choices...

You can post all you want about Pat Buchanan, but I would prefer him as president of the USA compared to George W. Bush.

 

And just what is anti-Semitic about this statement? It was a simple statement of his opinion before the first Gulf War. And I agree with it. I was very much opposed to the first Gulf War from the beginning. I did not vote for George H. W. Bush for president in 1988 or 1992.

And just what is anti-Semitic about this statement? Do you as a Christian not believe that Christianity advances a culture and that men are set free by the gospel?

 

Since you only gave me two choices I would have to choose birds of a feather as I have paid attention to politics and public affairs for as long as I can remember. So, no, my head is not buried in the sand. It's just that in weighing who would do best for America's interests, I would prefer Mr. Buchanan as president rather than Mr. Bush.

 

The war on Drugs is a bloated failure. I am not in complete agreement with the official Libertarian party position on legalization. The Drug laws need to be revised and this sending of non violent kids to prison because of drug use is immoral. A drug user is already in his or her own prison and to lock up nonviolent drug offenders with murderers is a injustice. In order to stop the supply, you must stop the demand. The War against Drugs has not worked and a emphasis on treatment of drug addicts rather than putting them in prison for abusing themselves needs to be considered.

 

Regrettably, the combat on the streets is the result of making drugs illegal.

That's not entirely justification for legalizing drugs, but what we are doing now is making things worse.

 

No society can eliminate crime by repealing the laws against criminal acts.

 

No, but a society can increase crime by criminalizing many things.

Whether or not drug gangs, killing, extortion, corruption, etc. is worse then people ruining themselves with drugs is at issue.

Whether or not the present system makes things worse is not at issue. It does.

 

About five years ago we had a lot of shoot-outs here without rival out-of-town gangs trying to get a foothold in Indianapolis. Eventually, the city contracted with the county to put deputies all over the neighborhood. The dealers were either arrested or shot by each other. However, the heavy patrols have had to continue in order to keep the crime rate down.

The problem here was that forty years ago too many large apartment complexes were allowed to be built one next to another, Galatian. This caused the neighborhood to have too many short-term residents. There are empty apartments all over, which also encourages crime.

 

Fact is, if every addict was given the opportunity to register, and to visit a clinic where he'd get a hit of whatever it was he was addicted to, the violence would decline.

I'm making no claims about whether that would be better or not. But the gangs would dry up. They thrive on the drug trade.

 

Too many drugs makes a person hostile and violent.

 

Depends on the kind of drug - they're not even close to being the same. Some are likely to induce psychosis and mania, some just make you drift off....

 

I think the jury is still out on that. Yes, there is temporary relief from the Taliban, but I think the Afghans are a far cry from being liberated from themselves or anyone else.

The tax cut in itself was good. But it is accompanied by massive, massive, massive, massive, massive Bush/Republican increases in spending. How do you figure that will work?

The PBA ban is a political sham. It allows coldhhearted politicians to cheaply buy the pro-life vote from gullible Christians while doing little or nothing to end abortion. The few babies now kiled by PBA will simply be done away with using alternate methods, while the cheap politicians get re-elected to allow 3500+ babies per day to CONTINUE TO BE SLAUGHTERED. But, die-hard Republican Christians will gladly support all of this because having "THEIR MAN IN THERE" trumps the cries of the little ones any day.

Actually he continues to say that the US is in Iraq to enforce the UN mandates. And, he's back to the UN for a little more help after he has drained the US economy dry with his war.

Seems that there's lots of terror there now, doesn't it? I'd rather have our dead soldiers back, and the TRILLION DOLLARS that this is probably going to cost us before too long.

Joseph, you're playing along perfectly. They offer tweedlededee and tweedlededum with at 10% difference and you line up behind tweedlededum. In so doing, you support massive federalization of education, massive budget increases, wars for der New Vorldt Order, abortion on demand, and the homosexual agenda. Count me out.

 

Depends on the kind of drug - they're not even close to being the same. Some are likely to induce psychosis and mania, some just make you drift off.... </font>[/QUOTE]Some daze I just can't seem to focus....

Tell me more....

 

You are wrong.

Republicans have controlled the U.S. Senate for 17 years or 24% of the time since 1932:

1947-48, 1953-54, 1981-86, 1995-2000, 2003

Republicans have controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for 13 years or 18% of the time:

1947-48, 1953-54, 1995-2003

The Republicans have controlled the White House for 31 years or 43% of the time:

1953-60, 1969-76, 1981-92, 2001-03

Average these together and Republicans have controlled the federal government 28% of the time since 1932.

Therefore, to be correct, you would have to state that the Democrats have been in power 72% of the time since 1932. </font>[/QUOTE]Then - 72% of our problems can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party.

I like that!

 

If I understand it correctly, the Republicans have only had total control of the government once between 1932 and 2000. And that was only for two years. President Eisenhower had a Republican House and a Republican Senate from 1953 to 1954.

 

I voted for Bush, Joseph, but only because of the wording of the question. I notice you did not include "none of the above." Now that would be an interesting poll.