Lots of people talking politics here. I thought it would be interesting to see what you thought of the presidential candidates. Its seems to me many on this forum are conservatives (bush is the closest thing i.e. anti gun control, increased defense spending, prolife) but many of you are concerned with the environment (Nator is the pro-environment guy...i think)and maybe somewhere in the middle Gore fits in. Just wondering what people on this forum thought about the subject.

-Bill

-- Bill (Bill74@Yahoo.com), July 26, 2000

Answers

Hi Bill, I'm your local neighborhood anarchist on this forum. I choose "none of the above" ! I want no central government, no president, and independent states. But in reality, I think Bush will landslide it and we will have four more years of nothing. I don't think he is a leader and I think he is way under educated and will not be a very good president. He will rely strickly on daddy to make every decision for him. So the national debt will double and he will plant us in a war to feed the families interest in Colt Arms that have the contract to make most of our military weapons. That's my opinion.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), July 26, 2000.

Sheesh Joel! With all of your appearant foreknowledge you should be making millions in the stock market!:)

-- Mike (mstydale@aeroinc.net), July 26, 2000.

I agree with Joel on Bush. And him picking ultra-conservative Cheney for running mate is downright frightening. Compassionate conservatism, my "bottom"!!!. Unfortunately, the democratic side is just as "owned" by corporations as the republicans. It will get much worse before it gets any better, I am afraid. Unfortunately, fixing the environment after we destroy half the planet in the interest of profit-making might prove impossible. So I have to vote green. Some people call it wasting votes, but Ralph Nader and the Greens get mine for sure.

-- Helen (bluechicken@wildbearnet.net), July 27, 2000.

While I'm not a politican nor even want to be, I do kinda "connect" to Chaney in one regard--heart surgery. The liberal press is jumpin all over him about it and trying to paint him as being on his last leg because of that life saving surgery. I hardly ever agree with the press and most certainly don't in this regard either. I don't know much about the man or his voting record. What I DO know about is the chest crackin, life saving surgery that I've had. I assume its the same as his except he had quadruple while I had six. I'm sure some others reading this have had the same surgery or at least know somebody that has. Again, I can't speak for anybody else but I'm just so thankful that Almighty God let me live and be able to "live" -not just exist. I do have some problems with moderate physical labor but I'm not as young as I was either. I guess what I'm trying to say is - they bring up a legimate question about his health but I don't think it's out of concern as much as something to start stirrin. My opinion? Leave the man alone, he's already been "ok'd" by the Doc's. After 8 years of what we have had in the White House, I don't think I can stand thinkin about another 4 from the man that started the internet and who said the problem with overpopulation in America was because there was too many [old] people. My two cents worth. Matt. 24:44

-- hoot gibson (hoot@pcinetwork.com), July 27, 2000.

When I worked as a photojournalist at a "major" newspaper a few years ago I had the opportunity to meed W. Bush several times and rode in a car with him a couple of times. This was both before he was our governor and after he got elected. I also met his wife Laura a couple of times on a one-to-one basis. I will say this, they both are two of the nicest, genuine, down to earth people I've ever met. They both just seemed so real and nice like regular people. And in my 25 years as a journalist I learned to judge people pretty well. And as a Texan I think W. has done a great job as governor. All you hear against him is that he didn't spend all our tax money by putting it in ultra liberal social programs. And I think it's foolish to say he dosen't care about the environment. And how in the world can anyone not see through Gore's trash. He's just a common criminal like Clinton.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 27, 2000.

To be honest, other than Nader, Bush and Gore I haven't even investigated other Presidential hopefuls. Gore on the environment is like putting Castro in charge of distribution. Take the land from the individual and sign it over to the UN or sell it to a "conservancy". It doesn't sit well with me. Nader would use Executive Orders to outlaw anything that used fossil fuels. Although I agree with promoting renewable energy, I don't feel that government needs to tell people what to do.....

Bush is not a friend of the conservative. He is just another big government guy. The apple hasn't rolled far from the tree. He is better than Robo-Gore, but it's like saying that lung cancer is better than bone cancer.

I will have to check out the Libertarian candidate.

I honestly don't think it makes any difference anymore whether we vote or not, Bush will be the next President.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), July 27, 2000.

I'm Libertarian all the way but I know our guy won't get elected and how the heck can anyone say W. is for big government. Big government is the liberals' way of life. Republicians want government to stay out of our lives and business.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 27, 2000.

And anotherthing...Well, anyway, if W. is such a bad governor how come he got re-elected by a 70% margin?

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 27, 2000.

I don't think Bush is all that great (he may be a nice person, but I will be VERY surprised if he makes a great president), know very little about Cheney, but Gore downright scares me! I had voted for Alan Keyes in the primary (that probably tells you about where I am in the political spectrum!) and am really sorry that he didn't get nominated, but guess I will have to vote for Bush, as Gore is unthinkable. Didn't know Nader was running, but would never vote for a rabid environmentalist. Yes, we need to protect the environment, but human beings come first. I guess a good word is *balance*. A lot of the leading environmentalists are unbalanced -- in more ways than one. I object to the comment about "compassionate conservatives", by the way. I am very conservative, and also compassionate. It is just that conservatives believe in individual responsibility, and that it isn't GOOD FOR PEOPLE to become dependent on government handouts. It takes away from them their self-respect, it destroys their families and their children -- I don't know how the liberals can call themselves compassionate when they support government handout programs that may create instant warm fuzzies, but do long-term harm to both the individuals and our society. It is like the parents who won't discipline their children while the children are little (Aw, he's so little, I don't want to hurt him, he doesn't understand, etc., etc., ad nauseum) and then wonder why said children have no respect for authority, bad attitudes, etc. when they get older. Not to mention high suicide rates, and a host of other problems. That is not compassionate. It is foolish. It is also wimpy. It takes strong people to stand up for what is right when that means saying "NO", but sometimes that is what needs to be done. You don't get people *off* government aid by giving them *more* of it. The government is in the business of doing a LOT more than it was originally intended to do, and that will, in the end, bring our nation to its knees. Gore, and his ilk, may believe that is a good goal to have, and maybe for those in power and with lots of money, it will be, but the rest of us will suffer greatly if such a thing ever comes to pass. Re: the political parties, there really isn't much to choose from between Republicans and Democrats anymore, but as long as the Democrats hold to a depraved moral view in their platform, I cannot vote for a Democrat. Sigh. Wish the power brokers could be gotten rid of, and the regular people get to make the decisions again, but I doubt that it will ever happen. We will just go on losing our freedoms -- the best we can hope for now is to slow the hemmorage (SP?) a little. So, as I said, I will vote for Bush -- and pray.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), July 27, 2000.

I hear people from outside Texas say all the time that they don't particularly like Bush but they guess they'll vote for him. But I have never heard, or read, what they don't like about him. I think it's just because he's from Texas and most people from other parts of the country that aren't familiar with Texas don't like anything about Texas. I just don't understand it. Go ahead and vote for Gore. Now there's somebody you can give a bunch of reasons for hating.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 27, 2000.

All right, I have done my homework and now i know who I will be voting for again. Harry Browne the Libertarian Nominee. If anyone would care to read his platform it is the same one as '96. Still the same issues as well. Here's the link www.lp.org/lpn/9608-Browne-platform.html.

W. is just not showing me anything other than he is not Gore. He had no competition for Governor either. He had more than 26 million left at the end of the gubenatorial race and his opponent only had 2.6 million total to run with. Weird corralation there.

I don't think he's Mr Evil, but I want someone who will put the teeth back in the Constitution or die trying. I surely don't want someone who is willing to even further compromise our national sovereignty. It truly upsets me that W. hasn't even offered a statement on the Waco mock trial. In his state one of the prime witnesses had yet another heart attack before he could submit his findings on the incident to the court. It's like that old Wendy's commercial; what is the substance of the man? I'm a nice guy isn't enough for me. I want an honorable, passionate, willing protector of the Constitution. He isn't talking about it in the papers. I don't have tv, so I don't watch much of it and don't know what's going on with it.

If you feel strongly for him, I would like to know what it is that is so compelling about him to you. Really. Thanks!

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), July 27, 2000.

With this election we do need to clear up one thing. Bill I hope your last name doesn't start with a "C". Sorry just couldn't resist. gail

-- gail missouri ozarks (gef123@hotmail.com), July 28, 2000.

The reason there was no strong opposition to W. in the re- election, according to what I read in major Texas papers, was that the Democrats knew that they couldn't beat W. even if Abe Lincoln would come back and run as a Democrat. During the campaign W. pretty much spelled out what he thought he could acoomplish and, one thing that impressed me, was that he also said he was realistic and spelled out things we needed but that he know he couldn't accomplish. He has fought to lower property taxes in Texas which are a problem because since we have no state income tax property taxes are high as hell. He did accomplish SOME releif. Taxes on my property are still higher than I think they should but we did get some relief. W. said up front that he believed in the death penalty, as do a huge margin of Texans, and when he was crtitized because Texas has executed so many murderers, he took the heat because he believed that, although it terrible to have to execute anyone, it is sometimes necessary. The day they executed that woman Carla Faye Tucker, I was with W. in Bonham, Texas where he was visiting the Sam Rayburn Library and home place, and I could tell it was weithing heavily on his mind, but he knew that a majority of the people in Texas believe the death penalty is necessary and it's the law and that she had been tried and convicted and went through the appeals process. The only critisism I've heard the Democrats put on W. is that he's for the death penalty, he's against abortion as a form of birth control, that he hasn't made the tax payers of Texas pay for insurance for every child in Texas. W. has done exactly what the majority of Texans wanted him to do. Things the liberal left don't agree with. If you're a left wing radical liberal you won't like W. If you're conservative and believe people should be held responsible for their actions and that working people should be able to own their home and property by working and paying for it and that the fedral government should stay out of the operation of our schools, you'll like W. Bush.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 28, 2000.

By the way, in case you didn't see it above, I think Liberterian all the way. But I have to look at the whole picture.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 28, 2000.

By the way again, I really can spell I just have a crappy keyboard and make a lot of typos.

Sorry

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 28, 2000.

George Dubya always seems to be smirking, which I find suspicious. Algore seems to be to invented and too controlled by his handlers.

I am placing my vote not on Presidential character, but rather for what party will be controlling the next (up to maybe 4?) Supreme Court Justice Placements....much more impactful on our freedoms, if you ask me.

Otherwise, I think Bullwinkle, with Rocky as VP, would be a fine ticket...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), July 28, 2000.

But then, if you choose a president of the country according to the expression on his face, you have no business voting anyway.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 28, 2000.

Excuse me? Am I to take umbrage at your post?

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), July 28, 2000.

I'm going to regret this --I just know it. Joe, let me introduce you to sheepish. She is a great person, very friendly and helpful !!!! Not to mention she is a regular on this forum from waaaaaayyyyyyyyy back when. I like your posts even if I don't agree with you politically. Politics, like religion is a very passionate subject but I think we could try not to alienate each other by turning our passions on the issues instead of each other ??? What do you think ?

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), July 28, 2000.

Joe, you asked what we don't like about Bush. I'm an ex Texan (yeah, I admit it, but I left as soon as I grew up). I'll give you one reason not to vote for him - he's a murderer. He kills people convicted of capital crimes, even knowing the odds that some of them are probably innoc

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoffjoe@yahoo.com), July 29, 2000.

Joe, you asked what we don't like about Bush. I'm an ex Texan (yeah, I admit it, but I left as soon as I grew up). I'll give you one reason not to vote for him - he's a killer. He kills people convicted of capital crimes, even knowing the odds that some of them are probably innoc

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoffjoe@yahoo.com), July 29, 2000.

Perhaps we should let the baby murderers go live with you.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 31, 2000.

Ahem... What Joel said...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), July 31, 2000.

Joe, Helloooooooo?

Was that a non-sequitur, or who?

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), August 01, 2000.

Okay, some of the things Joe said about Bush make me like him a little better. The things I have against him are 1. I don't think he is strong enough to really accomplish anything in the federal government -- this may be a misperception, based on his father's wimpy performance. I hope so. And 2. from what I've heard, as far as education in the state of Texas, he just went along with whatever the liberals wanted, which doesn't sound like he really has many convictions in that area. I happen to have very strong convictions that if the NEA gets to keep running the education establishment, they will in short order finish what they've started, which is bringing down our great country. And which was their stated intention from day one. So it really doesn't thrill me to see the possible future President of the United States giving these people whatever they want. Again, if anyone KNOWS differently, please say so. And folks, please don't call each other names! It's okay to say, "I think you are wrong, and here's why!" But not okay to resort to elementary school name-calling!!

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), August 01, 2000.

One day out of boredom, I went to a seminar called "Politics and Spirituality" I know, it sounds hokey, but bear with me hear, it gets better. The whole reason I went was because the ad said that a quantum physicist was going to speak and I'm a physics groupie. I had no idea who he was, but it had to be better than reruns. Anywho, that seminar has changed my life. The scientist was Dr. John Hagelin, who is running for pres. on the Natural Law Party. The WHO?, I hear you all thinking. Ya, me too. Appearantly, he is a world reknow scientist who is working on a unified field theory (a theory of everything, how all the major laws of nature meet into one overriding law, for all you non-science folks) and had come to the conclusion in his long study of the basic laws of the Universe that, from a scientific point of view as well as from a philisophical one that WE ARE ALL ONE. He looked around, like y'all are and found the choices not to his liking also, and decided to run himself. The platform of the NLP is simply that standard - WE ARE ALL ONE. They say that they will never support or propose legislature, etc. that will violate this priciple. What exactly does the platform mean? Basically, it means you can't harm one thing without harming not only other things, but eventually yourself as well. For example, a big corp. that pollutes the environment not only ruins the land, but eventually ruins the things that land supports, like the local economy, the tax base that supports, and eventually - whether through grassroots pressure or economic collapse - the corp. itself goes down, much like big tobacco, whic shot itself in the foot trying to hook more people more strongly in an attempt to get more business for itself at the expense of the rest of us. The party is for fiscal responsibilty, and (a biggie for me) preventative maintenance on issues like crime and health care ( he calls the current system the disease care system). His point was that the nation does not do itself a favor by disallowing a deduction for a $200 treadmill now, only to pay for a triple bypass 2 years down the road with hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. Ditto education, etc. His stance on abortion is grudgingly pro-choice, although his ideal would be more money spent on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, so that it ceases to be an issue at all. I feel it is a worhtwhile party to support and will do so with my vote. Currently, the NLP is trying to wrest the Reform Party nom. for Adolf Buchanan, with more help from Buchanan than anyone else (voter fraud on P.B.'s behalf (and behest) has been postulated and pretty much established) and they are going to try to get him booted out. They have filled many lower level political positons in a variety of states, but getting on the Pres. ballot has been an uphill battle on Old Boy stomping grounds. Appearently, it took more signatures to get him on the Fla ballot (just the ballot!) than it would take to get him elected head of state for a handful of first world nation countries PUT TOGETHER. NC is harder, and the last one to go (I'm not sure how they're doing). If anyone wants to check it out, go to: www.natural-law.org

-- Soni Pitts (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000.

Hi Soni. Several years ago I had the pleasure of watching a debate between the Presidential candidates of smaller parties. It was Libertarian, Taxpayer's, and Natural Law. I dubbed the Natural Law party as the Rose Colored Glasses Party. It's all very nice, but there is no way that it will work with a diverse and segmented humanity. I also didn't care for their ideas on super education at tax payer's expense.

I also am kind of a physics fan and certainly understand the fact that whatever action one takes causes many more reactions down the line ad infintum, but as a poitical system it doesn't work. God bless.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), August 02, 2000.