Given these choices...

I voted for Wes Clark. Surprise, surprise.

 

Me too. Also surprise. I note three anonymous votes for Bush.

Is there anyone willing to vote for Bush and say so?

 

But if Sean Hannity were running, I would vote for him!

 

I voted for Bush in the poll on "Given these were the only choices". Of course there are more both from the Libertarian and the Constitution parties.

Clark is right on his opposition to the Patriot Act and on some other issues though I am not sure he would be any better than Bush on Foreign policy. Clark is however Pro affirmative action, Gun control, and has stated, We believed in some degree of redistribution of income to insure everybody had a certain safety net under them, a certain equality of opportunities. Government has a legitimate role in doing this.” Like most Democrats he holds to a form of socialism. That are just a few reasons why I would not vote for him despite my problems with President Bush.

 

Fortunately I live in America, and nobody can limit my choice to these two left wing liberals.

If they both are on the ballot, there will be others.

IN NO CASE would either of these win my vote. I can:

Vote for a good candidate, if one is on the ballot. In the last election there was, and I voted for him.

Or, I can write someone in.

Or, I can vote for other offices and skip the Presidential vote.

Or, I can stay home.

But why would I allow anti-American leftist liberals MAKE me vote for one of theirs, in the process becoming part of their evil deeds???

 

Yep, people got so used to being lied to by Bill Clinton about Monica Lewinsky that being lied to by George W. Bush about WMDs in Iraq(resulting in hundreds of U.S. deaths and injuries and thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths - and is still ongoing) to help the neo-cons in their thirst for world-wide power seems minor to some people who still wish to vote for President Bush.

 

Read this and if you are an honest person it will wipe that laugh right off your face -

web page

 

wow - you read the whole article in 5 minutes!

impressive!

 

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- Hermann Goering

 

One thing that you Bush supporters are consistent about - ya'll never debate the facts. Ya'll just throw slurs around, talk smack like you're on some sports talk board, but ya'll never discuss substance. You're no better than the left-wingers that do the same thing.

I imagine that according to your definition of an anti-Semite - anyone who doesn't give carte blanche to anything Israel wants or does - then, yes, Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite. And so am I and just about everyone in the world except for few millinon of you hardline premillennialists.

Yes, I am serious.

Unless Mr. Arafat says something I agree with that makes a point that I think needs making I don't plan on quoting him. He and his ilk are just as much of extremists on one side as you and your ilk are on the other side.

 

The only trouble is that the grand German nazi plan did not work. And Goering, a junkie, ended up a suicide.

 

The plan failed but the quote was correct as the Nazis were able to mobilize the German people sufficiently to start World War II on September 1, 1939.

 

It is easy to vote for Bush over Clark, a confusing political amateur at best.

The Democrat Party is grasping for issues in order to stave off defeat next year. If they go with an anti-war candidate, then they will be defeated easily since most Democrats support the war. If they go with Gephardt, they will also be defeated as lackluster--which they are. The Democrats have been in power since 1932 and they are a coalition of many special-interest groups which now no longer agree with each other. They no longer have any ideas.

As for the Libertarian Party, as a resident of a very dangerous urban neighborhood, I do not want to see the war on drugs abandoned. The Libertarian website says that the war on drugs is Prohibition. Not so--alcohol was legal before Prohibition and drugs have never been legal. I cannot see leaving the drug addicts to self-destruct with cheap drugs. I think that the use of drugs itself makes people hostile and violent--and the price of the drugs has nothing to do with their being hostile and violent. So I am against the Libertarians for not wanting to do something worthwhile.

Indiana has municipal elections on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, and--God Willing--I intend to vote for a Republican for Mayor of Indianapolis in order to have a Mayor who is friendly towards job development and business expansion.

As for Bush, he is the lesser of two evils, isn't he? He would have been just another mundane President if it had not been for Nine Eleven which called upon him to respond above himself and which he did and he is doing.

 

You are wrong.

"Once the extremely debilitating power of addicting drugs was recognized, many American cities and states--starting with San Francisco in 1875--began passing anti-drug laws. In 1906, the Pure Food & Drug Act forced the patent medicine industry to list on the label the presence of certain dangerous drugs such as alcohol, opiates, cocaine, and cannabis."

- www.usdoj.gov/dea/deamuseum/museum_idaendl.html

"During the 19th Century, morphine was legally refined from opium and hailed as a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it, and this increased level of addiction continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor’s care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today."

"Specific federal drug legislation and oversight began with the 1914 Harrison Act, the first broad anti-drug law in the United States."

- www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

"From the time of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) to the end of the 19th century, the use and sale of opium, morphine, cocaine and other psychoactive drugs were legal and common. Opium was available with or without a prescription and was an ingredient in many patent medicines, including various pain-killers, cough mixtures and teething syrups for infants. Cocaine was also used medicinally, as well as in soft drinks and wine.

Things started to change around the turn of the century. Heroin was first isolated in 1898 and was purported to convey the same benefits as opium or morphine, without the risk of addiction. The realization of heroin’s addictive properties soon after its introduction coincided with racist appeals to protect American society from drugs. Initially, two drugs were targeted: Cocaine, associated mainly with blacks who were said to go on violent rampages under its influence, and opium, the smoking of which was associated with the Chinese. Alcohol temperance societies and religious groups also played key roles in lobbying for prohibition.

Despite strong opposition from the patent medicine industry, the U.S. Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. This legislation required over-the-counter medicines to list the amount of drugs contained in them in the hope that this would reduce the use of such medicines. Soon to follow was the Opium Smoking Act of 1909 (as Amended, 1914) in which Congress banned the importation of the drug for non-medicinal purposes."

- www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin2-e.htm#B.%20%20Historical

 

Nope.