Message to all US voters

[Teatowel]

Over here in the UK, George Bush appears to be the dumbest moron on the planet.

a) is this true?

and

b) if it is true, please don't vote for him! That's just the kind of world leader we need

 

[Czar]

Same here, here in Iceland both of them look like total morons. Dont vote for any of them

 

[Superwombat]

Sadly, he is. But Gore is the Devil... would you rather have a smart, evil man running the world, or a stupid, nice one?? (I chose neither and voted for Nadar)

 

[convex]

I can't vote nader =(

 

[ToBeMe]

Tea........this from a country that elected .......Tony Blairhead??????? We're stockpiling our smart candidates until we really need them......LOL

 

[etech]

A)Bush, smarter then Gore
B)Gov. Bush is obviously a better choice then the liberal lying Gore.



C) Stop meddeling or we will have to kick you out of the States AGAIN.

 

[MegalodoN]

How can you guys vote for Nadar...that's just cowardly...


Make a decision and stick to it...don't take the easy way out. Voting for Nadar is a waste of time...


--If you want a recession and a puppet in the oval office vote Bush...

--If you want things to keep plugging along like they are vote Gore

It's as simple as that!

 

[etech]

"If you want things to keep plugging along like they are vote Gore"

I disagree with that. Gore is way to the left of Clinton and will try to increase spending and goverment influence in your life even more.

If you think the government should be your mommy and daddy then vote for Gore.
If you want a chance to run your own life,keep a little more of your money and make your own decisions then vote for Gov. Bush.

 

[Teatowel]

Hmm.. Tony Blair is actually a decent bloke. As John Major said in '92 when he won, "Socialism is forever cast out of British politics".

He was right, Blair is not a Socialist. Americans seem to have a problem with that

 

[Tripleshot]

Gore is way to the left of Clinton and will try to increase spending and goverment influence in your life even more.

Thats pure hype and republican spin. Etech,that is your opinion,it is not what Al Gore says he is for or what he is going to do when elected on the 7th of November,2000.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush,who couldn't be farther away from the ideals of the green party if they tried. All Nader voters who have any iclination to preserve the environment should cast there vote for Al Gore,a candidate that far more closely will follow the ideals of the Green party than Shrubdub.

I would vote for Harry Browne if I thought he were electable,but that is throwing my vote away as well. The nation could not survive his radical idealism(but I damn sure wish they could!)

Al Gore has more political experience(24 years worth!),he has been a member of the House,the Senate and the Executive Branch, and far more active in decesion processes and negotiations than the cerimonial position shrub has had as Texas gov for a mear 5 1/2 years(all of which the right wing machinery began grooming and teaching shrub to be President. He has never been for Texas. His secret goal has always been to be President to vindicate his father loss to Bill Clinton,the nemisise of all right wing republicans)

Etech,you post your opinion,I post mine.

Vote for Al Gore, and continue this prosperity we have enjoyed for the last 8 years. At least he plans to pay down the deficit(even eliminating it in a decade) Thats more than anyone can say about Shrubdub.

 

[Electric Amish]

Voting is a waste of time. The president has no real power. None of the promises they make are worth the hot air they are spoken with. All the power is in congress and they're all beholden to whomever pays them the most.

amish

 

[creedog]

If you vote your heart, mind, and conscious you will never be wasting your vote. In my oppinion those who vote just to keep another out of office are wasting their vote.

Megalodon, how is voting nader a waste of time? If you agree with his politics and would like him to be president than you should vote for him, its as simple as that. I think that voting bush (or Gore) just to keep his major party counterpart out of office is very cowardly.

I myself an a libertarian nd have been four about 5 years. I joined the party as a matter of principle, as I felt that they were the party that represented me best. I vote libertarian as an ideal, even thought I know that my party of choice hardly has a chance. How is that cowardly?

IMHO every vote that my party gets helps it grow; the more people how know about the party make it stronger. Each and every year my party grows larger, beacuse more people are getting turned on to the party and its platform. Its a slow, uphill battle that I have accepted because I have chosen to stand on my principles. Now please explain to me how that is cowardly!

Voting for a Republicrat seems cowardly to me. Most people aren't even well educated enough that they are aware of the third party platforms and what the parties stand for. As a matter of fact many voters themselves are not even sure what they themselves stand for. How else can you explain those voters who have not been able to decide between either Bush or Gore. They have defined themselves as polar opposites of eachother on moast major issues (abortion, affirmative action, schools, spending, taxes, healthcare, gun controll). Their system only allows you to be for or against (as you said its that simple), so what can be said for those who can't even decise where they themselves stand on the issues.

But if you are casting your well-educated vote for the party and politician that you feel represents you and your ideals best, then all the power to you. Just don't call others cowardly becasue they feel differently from you, and have chosen to look outside the lines

 

[BoberFett]

Tripleshot

And you continue with the mindset that keeps the two major parties in power. As long as people only vote for someone that they think can win, we're stuck with Bores and Shrubs forever. We won't have a decent president until we can break this two party rut we're in.

Hell, I despise Nader and the Green Party, but I sooner see them get a vote than either Bore or Shrub.

 

[Teatowel]

creedog...

Voting to keep someone out of office is entirely justifiable. You'll want the lesser of two evils in office. Better that than not voting at all...

 

[I'm Typing]

Quote:
If you want a chance to run your own life,keep a little more of your money and make your own decisions then vote for Gov. Bush.

I want to be able to choose if I can have an abortion, is Bush going to let me do that?

I want to be able to go to a national park and not see fscking oil wells, is bushlite going to let me do that?

I want to be able to go fish in a river without worrying that the plant down the road (that is policing itself in regards to pollution) is putting vile chemicals in the water. Is bushlite going to let me do that?

I want to be able to take a deep breath without wondering what chemicals the plant down the street has placed in my lungs, is bushlite going to let me do that?

If Texas is any indication, he will not. Therefor, he is NOT letting me do what I want.

And frankly, if we go into a recession--a very real possibility considering his policies, I wont have as much money, either...

 

[BoberFett]

<< run your own life,keep a little more of your money and make your own decisions >>

I don't know, freedom is a pretty radical concept...</sarcasm>

 

[Tripleshot]

BoberFett
It breaks my heart we are stuck with both these Bozo's but reality check here. Either Bush or Gore is going to be the Presidentelect after Nov. 7th. The other candidates are only spoilers. I like some of the things Nadar stands for and I'm sure if he werre to be the President,he would work as hard to change the crap in D.C. as Harry Browne would. Hell,Harry Browne would march in,fire everybody and turn out the lights! Maybe in 10 years that might be realistic,but not NOW! We are stuck with a 2 party system and it will take work on the part of state elected politicians in the house and senate to reverse this crap 2 party sytem AND the electoral college.

I will vote for Gore because he isn't half as stupid as Bush is. This thread is about our allies laughing at us for even considering such a poor choice as GW to represent the US. It's dispicable. He couldn't effectively negotiate with foreign heads of state on matters of security or commerce--- They would never give him any credence whatsover. He's a country bumpkin that everybody wants to party with and go skinny dipping down by the Rio Grande and guzzle Lonestar beer with! He's a joke!

Vote for Al Gore if you are concerned about paying down the national debt,supporting preservation of the Social Security and Medicare program and prescription coverage under medicare(only old timers like me ever think about this stuff,I'm sure)sensible environmental protection and energy policy,a balanced approach to education that does not abandon Public education but enhances it and makes it accountable, and most importantly, he knows about world issues and can articulate US interests in a manner that doesn't sound like he just fell off the turnup truck !

 

[creedog]

<< Maybe in 10 years that might be realistic,but not NOW! We are stuck with a 2 party system and it will take work on the part of state elected politicians in the house and senate to reverse this crap 2 party sytem AND the electoral college. >>




Thats exactly why I vote libertarian today, so we can get there in ten or twenty years

 

[BoberFett]

Quite right creedog. If the Republicrats continue to garner 85% or more of the votes then no meaningful change will occur.

 

[Ferocious]

I've said many times both Bush and Gore suck bad.

I despise Bush intensely, but I'm seriously thinking about voting for him so Kerrey can take over in 2004. It seems like a better scenario than Gore for 8 years (meaning Kerrey might never run for office.) I dunno yet, still torn.

Bob Kerrey would have crushed Bush.

Browne is senile. I don't want Heroin available to 10 year olds at the local shop. No way.

 

[ToBeMe]

Here's the way I see it........Don't want Gwhore in there.....despite what others say IMHO he WILL be bad for the country as the Senior Citizens have voiced loudly (as the National Assoc. for the Aging has posted upwards of %80 in favor of Bush) and as Alan Greenspan has stated That Bush's plan WILL work....Gwhores will raise the deficit and hurt the &quot;common taypayer&quot;! My hopes are actually that Colin Powell will be in there in the near future! I was just emailed the current polls and from &quot;MY&quot; viewpoint.....this looks GREAT!!!............

1. 12:37 PM By The Associated Press When results don't total 100 percent, the remainder either declined to answer or backed another candidate. Suppose the election for president were being held today and you had to choose between Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, the Democrats; George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans; Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke, the Green Party candidates, and Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster, the Reform Party candidates. For whom would you vote? NATIONAL (ABC News tracking poll) - Bush, 47 percent - Gore, 39 percent - Nader, 3 percent - Buchanan, ( is less than 1 percent) (IBD-CSM-TIPP tracking poll) - Bush, 47 percent - Gore, 41 percent - Nader, 3 percent - Buchanan, 1 percent (ICR) - Bush, 47 percent - Gore, 40 percent - Nader, 9 percent - Buchanan, 3 percent (CNN-USA Today-Gallup tracking poll) - Bush, 47 percent - Gore, 42 percent - Nader, 2 percent - Buchanan, 1 percent (MSNBC-Reuters-) - Bush, 49 percent - Gore, 42 percent - Nader, 5 percent - Buchanan, 1 percent Voter.com National Poll - Bush, 48 percent - Gore, 40 percent - Nader, 4 percent - Buchanan, 1 percent STATES Florida - Bush, 48 percent - Gore, 41 percent - Nader, 2 percent - Don't know, 6 percent Michigan - Bush, 48 percent - Gore, 39 percent - Nader, 3 percent - Don't know, 5 percent Pensylvania - Bush, 47 percent - Gore, 40 percent - Nader, 2 percent - Someone else, 2 percent - Don't know, 4 percent Arkansas - Bush, 46 percent - Gore, 40 percent - Nader, 4 percent, - Undecided, 5 percent Louisiana - Bush, 52 percent - Gore, 39 percent - Others, 3 percent New Hampshire - Bush, 46 percent - Gore, 43 percent - Nader, 5 percent - Undecided/Other, 5 percent Florida - Bush 45 percent, Gore 41 percent, Nader 3 percent Illinois - Bush 46 percent, Gore 43 percent, Nader 3 percent Michigan - Bush 47 percent, Gore 45 percent, Nader 3 percent Missouri - Bush 49 percent, Gore 43 percent, Nader 3 percent Ohio - Bush 49 percent, Gore 43 percent, Nader 3 percent Pennsylvania - Bush 45 percent, Gore 42 percent, Nader 4 percent Tennessee - Bush 51 percent, Gore 44 percent, Nader 2 percent Washington state - Bush 46 percent, Gore 43 percent, Nader 6 percent Wisconsin - Gore 49 percent, Bush 40 percent, Nader 6 percent
   

 

[Moving Target]

I think EA has it right!

The president has no real power. None of the promises they make are worth the hot air they are spoken with. All the power is in congress and they're all beholden to whomever pays them the most.

 

[Napalm381]

<< The president has no real power. >>

The fact that the President is the one who has the ability to sign a bill into law or veto it isn't power? Riiiiiiiight.

As for I'm Typing's midleading statements about Bushes environmental record...I quote the Cato Institute.:
What about toxic pollution? Texas does indeed rank high on the list of states with the most toxic air, land and water emissions, but that's because Texas is where 60% of the nation's petrochemical companies happen to be, and they're the biggest sources of toxic emissions simply given their chemical-intensive nature.

First, the petrochemical industry was in Texas long before Bush assumed the governorship; it didn't follow him there. Second, those emissions--even according to the EPA--are well below the threshold of human health concern. Third, nobody's breaking the law. Fourth, those plants have to be somewhere--otherwise, there would be no gasoline, no home heating oil, no diesel fuel--and whatever state those plants call home would sit at the top of any &quot;toxic pollution&quot; list. And finally, toxic emissions from major industrial sources in Texas have dropped a whopping 40% over the past decade.

But aren't the pollution laws voluntary in Texas? No. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and all the rest of the monstrous federal environmental regulatory code applies to Texas just like every other state. There's nothing voluntary about it. Bush indeed has put in place an incentive program to get industry to reduce pollution beyond federal standards, but why are regulatory &quot;sticks&quot; necessarily better than regulatory &quot;carrots&quot;?

On another front, Texas, like a number of other states, has a &quot;self audit&quot; program to encourage industry to report inadvertent violations of the federal environmental code that they would otherwise have legal incentives to conceal. If regulated entities come clean about inadvertent violations and negotiate remedies with Texas regulators, the state won't hammer the rule-breakers into the ground. There's nothing obviously anti-environmental about that.

But Bush hasn't relied exclusively on carrots; he's used the stick as well. In 1999, he supported and signed legislation to require Texas power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions (a potential source of smog) by 50% and acid-rain-causing compounds by 25%--reductions far beyond those required by Washington.

 

[etech]

Gore and the economy, doesn't look good.

Al Gore?s proposals to increase federal spending now exceed the total ten-year projection of federal budget surpluses by over a trillion dollars. National taxpayers union


Al?s ?Goregantuan? Spending Is Like Nothing Since The LBJ Years. ??These are very, very, very large spending increases. The vice president really has proposed a dramatic expansion in the role and cost of the federal government,? said Carol Cox Wait, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. ?There?s really nothing like it until you go back to the spending programs of LBJ's Great Society social-welfare spending.?? (Don Lambro, ?Federal Role Big In Gore Proposal; Spending Increase Largest Since LBJ,? The Washington Times, September 20, 2000)

Gore's Proposals Will Add Up To 30,000 Bureaucrats In Washington. &quot;By
looking at the relationship between factors such as outlays,employees, and administrative costs for the agencies today that would also be involved in the Vice President?s proposals and applying these ratios to the new programs that have been proposed, the Bulletin estimates that if these proposals were fully in place today, they would require 20,000-30,000 new employees to carry them out. This range is comparable to two to three armored divisions of military troops.&quot; (Budget Bulletin, Senate Budget Committee, October 2, 2000)

The irony is that Al Gore is claiming credit for the results of, and is the beneficiary of, policies that he opposed ? he voted against the Reagan tax cut in 1982, which reduced the maximum tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent ? and still does not seem to understand. The amount of any future surplus is highly dependent upon future economic growth rates. We know the economy is more likely to grow faster when the high marginal tax rates on work, saving and investment are reduced. The Bush tax plan reduces these tax disincentives, while the Gore plan, relying primarily on targeted tax credits, does not. The
Clinton-Gore administration forecasting errors primarily came from the fact they treated variables (i.e., the relationship between tax rates and the incentive to work, save, invest and take economic risks) as constants, a conceptual mistake that continues to characterize the new Gore tax and spending plan.
(Richard W. Rahn Washington Times October 24, 2000)
Who gave us the surplus

 

[etech]

Tripleshot
&quot;support ...Medicare program and prescription coverage under medicare&quot;
Looks like Gov. Bush plans to supports medicare very well.

A Commitment That Must be Kept: Governor Bush's Medicare plan will provide every senior with access to an affordable health plan that covers prescription drugs and other important benefits. Medicare will cover the entire cost of a health plan, including prescription drug expenses, for low-income seniors. Governor Bush's plan will guarantee seniors the benefits they are entitled to today, and will allow seniors the option, if they wish, to stay in their existing Medicare plan without any changes.
Comprehensive Reform: Governor Bush's plan will also modernize Medicare to better serve seniors and to ensure the system's continued financial health. Despite Medicare's success in providing health care to seniors, the Medicare system has not kept pace with 21st century medicine, is burdened by bureaucratic complexity, and faces insolvency.

·Guarantee that every senior remains entitled to the same benefits they are entitled to today. Seniors can choose to stay in their current Medicare system without any changes.

·Give seniors the opportunity to select a plan that best fits their health care needs. Medicare recipients will have a choice of health plans offering expanded benefits, including prescription drug coverage. Seniors will be able to change their health plan annually if they are dissatisfied with their coverage.

·Cover the full cost of health coverage including prescription drug coverage for seniors with incomes at or below 135% of poverty (currently $11,300 for individual seniors and $15,200 for couples).

·Cover some of the cost of prescription drug coverage for individual seniors with incomes between 135% of poverty and 175% of poverty (currently $14,600 for individual seniors and $19,700 for couples).
·Pay at least 25% of the premium costs for prescription drug coverage for all seniors.

·Cover any catastrophic Medicare expenses in excess of $6000 annually for all seniors.

Gov. Bush's medicare plan