If you are thinking about voting for Kerry, please read this first.

</font>[/QUOTE]Either way you lose. Either you give up or you choke while laughing. Planned it that way all along.

 

It depends on several things for me. Please understand, that when it comes to politics, I am pretty much a pragmatist I guess. It might be wrong, and if so, then please pray for God to change my heart. These are the conditions that would have to come to be for me to vote for a Constitution Party candidate:

1. The things you mentioned above.
2. The war against terror is over and our troops are not in a combat zone in the Middle East or the CP removes from its plank the idea of ending the war on terror before we win it.
3. In between now and 08, they need to put forward a serious effort to not just make a statement, but elect governors, congressmen, and other local offices at the grassroots level and start proving to people that they can make a difference at the local level. The truth is, until about a year ago, I had never heard of the Constitution Party and they expect me to vote for some guy who I have never heard of and don't know much about from some party that I don't know and know much about. Seriously, they can make all these promises, (just like all politicians who want to unseat an incumbent do), but what have they actually done in the past in their other offices of public service. I guess that is probably my biggest problem with Peroutka: his lack of actual experience. What has he actually done to make him worthy of running the entire nation?
4. Run someone for president (this kinda goes with #3) who people know and can relate to, who we could vote for and not feel like we are going to be voting for Hillary in the process, electing as tyrant of the USA the most Communist leader to ever rule the United States. I really don't want that to happen. So get someone out there who people know and recognize who we can feel comfortable voting for, kinda like the GOP did in 1980.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I can respect you response.

What is your deffinition of "war on terror". Do you believe like Bush that America can "rid the world of terrorism and evil"? Or do you understand that no mater how many countries we invade, there will always be terrorist and people who hate America. I posted this on another thread, but it is appropriate here in this response as well. I agree with Constitution Party founder, Howard Phillips, who said the following in 2001:

Several Presidential administration, after having promised to take decisive action against terrorists, failed to comprehensively and thoroughly do so. Think how many thousands of lives would have been saved if Osama bin Laden and his ilk had been taken out during the Clinton Administration.

The events of September 11 were not, as high officials have suggested, an attack on freedom and democracy, rather, they were a manifestation of Islamic fanaticism. Unconstitutional interventionism on the part of the government of the United States, over many decades, has made America a target of hostility in many places all over the world. U.S. participation in U.N. interventions in the Balkans and our effort to play "power broker" in the Middle East have exacted a price.

The Executive Order prohibiting assassination should be revoked by President Bush. It is never moral to make innocent non-combatants a primary target. It would have been much more just, for example, for the U.S. military, to have assassinated Saddam Hussein and his immediate cohorts than to have placed at risk the Iraqi civilian population, U.S. military personnel, or even politically disengaged Iraqi soldiers.

 

Well, I don't expect Kerry to make any radical changes between now and November; nor do I expect any big changes from Bush.

Sometimes I think that the "three monkeys" are smarter that we give them credit.

I was injured on the job six years ago. The problems associated with this have plunged me into worse poverty than I ever imagined possible (I know that there are many people in worse shape than I am in, so please don't tell me how well I have it compared to to others). I have found the church as helpful during this time as an overcoat in the desert heat. I really believe that the democratic party is more in tune with the plight of the poor than the republicans. Therefore, I will vote for what may well be my very survival. I don't want to end up living under an overpass, sleeping in a cardboard box.

 

Joseph,

I'm afraid "War on Terror" has become a slogan to justify any foreign action that is desired by the Bush administration.

1. "Terror" is not a person or place that can be militarily defeated. It is a despicable tactic that cannot be dealt with by conventional warfare, for the most part.

2. We are supposed to be conditioned to think that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq; but the terrorists who attacked us were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and most of their associates seem to hide in Pakistan.

3. In fact, we were attacked by Shiite Muslims. Shiites were pretty much powerless in Iraq until we arrived. Now they are in line to run the government. Will this make us safer from terrorism?

3. As we daily conduct the "war" in Iraq (that Bush wanted to consider finished over a year ago) we can't help but kill some number of innocent civilians. Are we killing terrorists, or creating them? If you were a surviving family member of a "colateral damage", would you be kindly disposed to the USA?


So you see, war in Iraq does not equal "war on terror". And wanting a better avenue to protect ourselves does not equal being "soft on terrorists".

 

Jim,

What you say sounds logical. But, ask yourself this:

1. If Iraq didn't matter to Al Quaeda, then why did they attack Spain and threaten more attacks unless they pulled out of Iraq.

2. It is no real secret that Saddam and the Ba'athist funded terrorism in Israel and throughout the Middle East.

They were certainly in the middle of everything. Do I think Iraq will be the end? Probably not. But, they must be dealt with.

Joseph Botwinick

 

First, the invasion of an Arab country gave Al Quaeda a huge propaganda victory and a means to stir up Arab opinion against the US. They have no love for Saddam at all; they have called him an apostate and an infidel.

Second, Saddam actually suppressed, tortured and killed Islamists. His fellow Baathist in Syria surrounded one city where the people were favorable to Islamists, and destroyed it and the people in it.

Saddam posed a threat to other nations, but not to us. Bush needed a war, he had a personal grudge against Saddam, and so we had the war. There's no point in saying that it was for America; Saddam was no threat at all to us.

 

I guess this goes to the Blame America argument which says that America is to blame for all the evil in the world. I simply don't buy that. The terrorists hated America long before we showed up in Iraq. And part of the reason for that is because Israel is an ally and that we support one of the only true Democracies in the Middle East, being Israel. They are offended by our freedom. They are offended by the existence of Israel. I guess, as far as I am concerned, they are just gonna have to be offended. I don't want to make friends with the terrorists. I don't want them to like us more. I don't want to do anything but defeat them.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The point is that we are responsible for what we do. Of course terrorists always hated us. The point is, we are starting to teach ordinary Iraqis to hate us.

A much more serious problem, in the long run. And confusing ordinary Iraqis with terrorists just makes things worse.

 

The events of September 11 were not, as high officials have suggested, an attack on freedom and democracy, rather, they were a manifestation of Islamic fanaticism. Unconstitutional interventionism on the part of the government of the United States, over many decades, has made America a target of hostility in many places all over the world. U.S. participation in U.N. interventions in the Balkans and our effort to play "power broker" in the Middle East have exacted a price. </font>[/QUOTE]There's the blame America ideology again. It is not our fault that terrorists attacked us on 9-11.

The Executive Order prohibiting assassination should be revoked by President Bush.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this here.

It is never moral to make innocent non-combatants a primary target. It would have been much more just, for example, for the U.S. military, to have assassinated Saddam Hussein and his immediate cohorts than to have placed at risk the Iraqi civilian population, U.S. military personnel, or even politically disengaged Iraqi soldiers. [/QUOTE]

The United States military doesn't primarily target innocent civilians. That is the kind of thing that Saddam Hussein and his terrorist buddies did by making them human shields.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Well, I'm sure these dead innocent civilians feel much better knowing they were not the primary target.

The point is that the US should not be in Iraq. We invaded a country for Bush's oil buddies.

 

I wouldn't say we invaded Iraq for oil.

I think Bush and many other neocos actually believe that it is our duty as American's to invade any country that is not a democracy in order to setup democracies around the world. I wonder if they will try to set up a democracy here in America when they are done with their globalization? We have moved toward democracy for many years, they wouldn't have much left to do to finish the job.

This is another reason I am voting for Michael Peroutka, I believe we need to "Restore the Republic", not establish world wide democracies.

 

Well, I'm sure these dead innocent civilians feel much better knowing they were not the primary target.

The point is that the US should not be in Iraq. We invaded a country for Bush's oil buddies. </font>[/QUOTE]Terry,

What has been the political payoff for Bush? Where is all the oil that we are stealing from their country? Shouldn't our gas prices be lower if that were true? Certainly Bush would want to immediately steal all their oil and lower our gas prices before the election if what you say is true.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Well, I'm sure these dead innocent civilians feel much better knowing they were not the primary target.

The point is that the US should not be in Iraq. We invaded a country for Bush's oil buddies. </font>[/QUOTE]Terry,

What has been the political payoff for Bush? Where is all the oil that we are stealing from their country? Shouldn't our gas prices be lower if that were true? Certainly Bush would want to immediately steal all their oil and lower our gas prices before the election if what you say is true.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]You make some good points; however, I fear that one of the main reasons we went into Iraq was so that Halliburton could be in charge of rebuilding the oil infrastructure of Iraq. I know that now Halliburton is making record profits, whereas before they were having some financial problems.

 

Actually, Halliburton isn't doing all that great right now.

Due to all of the "hunting" of Americans working over there Halliburton has been forced to continue raising the salaries paid to workers willing, or stupid, enough to go over to Iraq.

In fact, as of a couple months ago, Halliburton has a hiring freeze, and they are even pulling people out of Iraq.

Trust me on this, I know for a fact because I know several people working for them, plus my cousin, my dad, and I all applied to fill certain positions in the Middle East...not in Iraq, however. I'm not that crazy.

You have to remember something else Terry. The Democrats are not interested in folks like you because you are not part of their platform.

If you are gay, a minority, female, a single parent, or an atheist they might give a rat's behind as to what you think of them, but as you are not then I would throw my vote to someone else.

Besides that, honesty and integrity come before monetary gains in my book. If I wanted the candidate who could give me the most money I would vote Socialist and let the really rich pay for me. I would not vote for Bush because he is only really helping the rich, and I'm not voting for Kerry because he would only really help those I named above...very little help I might add. Just enough to make them think he actually cares. It's really all a bunch of rhetoric that no one intends to keep when they're elected.

I have made the decision to vote for Peroutka, if he's on the ballot, and it feels so good not having to defend a candidate's every action, or inaction as the case may be, against every every thing he does or says that's not inline with my beliefs.

 

It doesn't look like Texas will put his name on the ballot, they said that there were not enough "valid" signatures gathered. You may have to write-in his name like the Peroutka voters in North Carolina are doing. You can contact your state and local party officials to see if there is anything you can do to help with their efforts.

The Texas petition requirements for third-parties and statewide candidates are too high. Prior to 1967, parties in Texas needed only to hold conventions in 20 counties and a statewide convention to nominate candidates for the ballot. However in 1967 the Texas legislature passed a requirement that third-parties gather petition signatures equal to 1% of the voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election (which usually amounted about 45,000 signatures), from those who did not vote in the most recent primary, and in only 75 days!

 

Also keep in mind that it is certainly easier to defend a candidate who nobody knows, who has no experience, and who has never done anything. Of course, that doesn't really assure a better outcome. It's easy to look squeeky clean when you are not under the microscope of the public eye, and then promise the world while criticizing the leaders who are actually doing something and are under the microscope of the public eye.

Joseph Botwinick

 

And, we can't expect those current leaders to change or do anything different, if we keep giving them our votes, but not demanding change.

 

That is the point. It is really easy to be on the outside looking in, and demand change, and criticize, and offer the world when you have never actually been there in Bush's shoes and actually had to make the decisions or do anything.

Joseph Botwinick