4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS!

[freeyourself]

Up to now, I have deliberately kept out of the tedious debate as to who is the better candidate in the current Presidential Election.

This is largely due to the fact that I find both candidates equally repugnant.

However, I am now breaking my silence, as the stakes are too high to ignore.

While I find the Bush Administration to be little better than useless, regarding their Domestic & Social policies & their (mis)management of the American economy, I feel the Republican Party, under George W, are the best equipped to continue the fight against Global Terrorism, which is quite possibly, the greatest danger the World has ever faced.

Islamic Fundamentalists are hell bent on causing as much damage to American (& their allies) interests, both in the States itself & around the World, as they possibly can.
Their ambitions,at present, outweigh their abilities, but they will not rest until the entire Middle East, & beyond, is under their control & influence.

Whatever your views on the situation in Iraq, we can't just pack up overnight & leave, & it is foolish & unrealistic to suggest otherwise.

The ones who are still bleating about the absence of WMD's or the illegality of the War should get over it & deal with the present situation,
which has Islamic fundamentalist fanatics commiting murder indiscriminately & causing carnage around the World.

I sincerely hope that diplomatic channels can be properly explored to try to end the conflict, whoever wins on Tuesday, but diplomacy has more chance of success when supported by military strength.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide & Islamic fundamentalism is on the increase.

I don't believe Kerry has the will nor the stomach for what lies ahead.

Bush has proved already that he has.

 

[ermy]

> Up to now, I have deliberately kept out of the tedious debate as to who is
> the better candidate in the current Presidential Election.

As opposed to the fascinating debate regarding board moderation.

> However, I am now breaking my silence, as the stakes are too high to
> ignore.

Don't you remember what the doctor said? - just the one pompous pill per day.

> While I find the Bush Administration to be little better than useless,
> regarding their Domestic & Social policies & their (mis)management
> of the American economy, I feel the Republican Party, under George W, are
> the best equipped to continue the fight against Global Terrorism, which is
> quite possibly, the greatest danger the World has ever faced.

> Islamic Fundamentalists are hell bent on causing as much damage to
> American (& their allies) interests, both in the States itself &
> around the World, as they possibly can.
> Their ambitions,at present, outweigh their abilities, but they will not
> rest until the entire Middle East, & beyond, is under their control
> & influence.

> Whatever your views on the situation in Iraq, we can't just pack up
> overnight & leave, & it is foolish & unrealistic to suggest
> otherwise.

> The ones who are still bleating about the absence of WMD's or the
> illegality of the War should get over it & deal with the present
> situation,
> which has Islamic fundamentalist fanatics commiting murder
> indiscriminately & causing carnage around the World.

> I sincerely hope that diplomatic channels can be properly explored to try
> to end the conflict, whoever wins on Tuesday, but diplomacy has more
> chance of success when supported by military strength.

> There are 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide & Islamic fundamentalism is on
> the increase.

> I don't believe Kerry has the will nor the stomach for what lies ahead.

> Bush has proved already that he has.

There's a lot of sense in that.

 

[freeyourself]

> As opposed to the fascinating debate regarding board moderation.

> Don't you remember what the doctor said? - just the one pompous pill per
> day.

> There's a lot of sense in that.

The moderation debate was, in fact, highly amusing last night, but I guess you had to be there.

The "breaking my silence" comment was a private joke, referring to a sketch on Brass Eye, where Phil Collins 'Broke his silence' about something or other, that my delightful partner & I mention on ocassion. How we laughed.

I hope that's cleared things up for you & perhaps you may be prepared to reconsider the unjust charge of excess pompousity.

 

[freeyourself]

> The moderation debate was, in fact, highly amusing last night, but I guess
> you had to be there.

> The "breaking my silence" comment was a private joke, referring
> to a sketch on Brass Eye, where Phil Collins 'Broke his silence' about
> something or other, that my delightful partner & I mention on
> ocassion. How we laughed.

> I hope that's cleared things up for you & perhaps you may be prepared
> to reconsider the unjust charge of excess pompousity.

Just to further clarify for the benefit of the hard of understanding, the 'Phil Collins has broken his silence' line was delivered with a barely noticible sardonic air, which roughly translated meant '"who the f*** cares what Phil Collins thinks??"

I am aware that no-one on Earth was waiting for my opinion on this issue, but that's never stopped me before.

 

[ermy]

> The moderation debate was, in fact, highly amusing last night, but I guess
> you had to be there.

I guess so. I can't get too excited about this moderation thing, I just wish they wouldn't remove parts of threads so you miss what people are replying to.

> The "breaking my silence" comment was a private joke, referring
> to a sketch on Brass Eye, where Phil Collins 'Broke his silence' about
> something or other, that my delightful partner & I mention on
> ocassion. How we laughed.

> I hope that's cleared things up for you & perhaps you may be prepared
> to reconsider the unjust charge of excess pompousity.

Ok, consider it reconsidered. I only saw a couple of Brass Eyes, but they were most enjoyable. I think a DVD may be out. I shall put it on my Xmas list.

 

[Colleen1962]

> Up to now, I have deliberately kept out of the tedious debate as to who is
> the better candidate in the current Presidential Election.

> This is largely due to the fact that I find both candidates equally
> repugnant.

> However, I am now breaking my silence, as the stakes are too high to
> ignore.

> While I find the Bush Administration to be little better than useless,
> regarding their Domestic & Social policies & their (mis)management
> of the American economy, I feel the Republican Party, under George W, are
> the best equipped to continue the fight against Global Terrorism, which is
> quite possibly, the greatest danger the World has ever faced.

> Islamic Fundamentalists are hell bent on causing as much damage to
> American (& their allies) interests, both in the States itself &
> around the World, as they possibly can.
> Their ambitions,at present, outweigh their abilities, but they will not
> rest until the entire Middle East, & beyond, is under their control
> & influence.

> Whatever your views on the situation in Iraq, we can't just pack up
> overnight & leave, & it is foolish & unrealistic to suggest
> otherwise.

> The ones who are still bleating about the absence of WMD's or the
> illegality of the War should get over it & deal with the present
> situation,
> which has Islamic fundamentalist fanatics commiting murder
> indiscriminately & causing carnage around the World.

> I sincerely hope that diplomatic channels can be properly explored to try
> to end the conflict, whoever wins on Tuesday, but diplomacy has more
> chance of success when supported by military strength.

> There are 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide & Islamic fundamentalism is on
> the increase.

> I don't believe Kerry has the will nor the stomach for what lies ahead.

> Bush has proved already that he has.
freeyourself, I respect your opinion, and I was actually telling a friend of mine yesterday that this is why Bush will most likely win- because the country is uneasy about having this mess handed to Kerry, when they don't know what his actions will be to solve it. Somehow, it feels *comforting* to the Conservative Americans that Bush finish this war. I hate him, and do not want him to win, but I have no great love for Kerry either. I am voting for the lesser of two evils, and that is Kerry. Ever since I have been old enough to vote, it's ALWAYS been this way for me. There's NEVER been a candidate I've totally loved. It's always the lesser of two evils.

 

[The Original J.T. Ripper]

> freeyourself, I respect your opinion, and I was actually telling a friend
> of mine yesterday that this is why Bush will most likely win- because the
> country is uneasy about having this mess handed to Kerry, when they don't
> know what his actions will be to solve it. Somehow, it feels *comforting*
> to the Conservative Americans that Bush finish this war. I hate him, and
> do not want him to win, but I have no great love for Kerry either. I am
> voting for the lesser of two evils, and that is Kerry. Ever since I have
> been old enough to vote, it's ALWAYS been this way for me. There's NEVER
> been a candidate I've totally loved. It's always the lesser of two evils.

This is very true, and I feel likewise. It makes you wonder whether it's purely the fact that politics only seems to attract those like Bush and Kerry who are just distasteful choices for president, or whether legitimate, honest people get into politics and politics itself winds up corrupting and reshaping their original high-minded intentions....

J.T.

 

[Colleen1962]

> This is very true, and I feel likewise. It makes you wonder whether it's
> purely the fact that politics only seems to attract those like Bush and
> Kerry who are just distasteful choices for president, or whether
> legitimate, honest people get into politics and politics itself winds up
> corrupting and reshaping their original high-minded intentions....

> J.T.
J.T. - as for the legitimate and honest people getting into politics, and politics itself having a hand in corrupting them, I think the media plays a HUGE role in this also. What do you think about the Libertarian Party? Oh, Bush is prez because of a few missing chads, and of course good ol' Jeb. Gore had the popular vote, but I don't know about him either. He makes me uneasy.

 

[The Original J.T. Ripper]

> J.T. - as for the legitimate and honest people getting into politics, and
> politics itself having a hand in corrupting them, I think the media plays
> a HUGE role in this also. What do you think about the Libertarian Party?
> Oh, Bush is prez because of a few missing chads, and of course good ol'
> Jeb. Gore had the popular vote, but I don't know about him either. He
> makes me uneasy.

I really like the Libertarian Party in principle, but I think they take some of the unpopular positions with which I agree and take them perhaps a bit too far. As a guy who's mostly a conservative, the Libertarian themes of less government intervention and expanded individual freedoms are enticing, but I think the extent to which the LP stresses these probably doesn't take into account certain realities of our society.

I personally think marijuana should be legalised -- it is FAR less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes (particularly if ingested, not smoked), and it is silly to sell alcohol at the local grocery store whilst making weed a jailable crime. The LP agrees with that stance. But the LP also takes it further, saying the government really shouldn't be in the drug-banning business at all -- that makes me a bit uneasy with respect to things like LSD, cocaine, heroin, etc. I'm not saying I'm right about preferring those "hard" drugs remain illegal, because one could always raise the "line in the sand" argument, but it's just a gut reaction for me.

Same goes with individual liberties. I am a huge proponent of individual liberties and against political correctness, Big Brother, etc. etc. But the LP extends this concept to EVERYBODY, whereas I draw a massive line between "American citizens" and "those who aren't American citizens." As such, I feel that illegal aliens in this country have no rights AT ALL beyond the basic civil and corporeal rights to not being tortured, abused, etc. I'm also stridently against immigration both legal and illegal --- my basic take is that if we shut down immigration (allowing small numbers from Western Europe, as well as some relatives of american citizens), then all of a sudden the threat of a 9/11 is greatly diminished as it becomes VERY difficult for middle-easterners to get into the country. Once you've protected your country in such a manner, then all of a sudden the Patriot Act (vile as it is) is not really needed anymore. So where the LP says "freedom for ALL!", I respond with "freedom for American citizens, and deport/block most everyone else"

Some ask how i can be "conservative" yet "pro-choice." Easy. I'm for massive personal freedoms and liberties for American citizens, and this obviously includes women just as much as men. If you're a woman and a citizen, then who am I to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body? I despise abortion personally, but that's my own problem, not anyone else's.

The LP is intriguing for sure, I just fear that it's a bit overly simplistic to really work. And of course their "open borders" philosophy is the polar opposite of my opinion on one of the political subjects about which i feel most strongly.

As for Gore..... yech. In all honesty, I would take Kerry over Gore. Gore was better in the late '80s when he ran in 1988 and his biggest claim to fame was being pro-environment. I respect very much the pro-environment, anti-big oil stances -- it's one of the Democratic Party's best assets. But Gore became a sellout, and flip-flopped worse than Kerry ever did. All Gore did for me in 2000 was to remind me just how great Bill Clinton was and what a pathetic shadow Gore was by comparison

Lastly, concurred on the media. Now, it's no longer just about the meat-and-potato issues, it's about how good you look. It's about whether you blink too much, or whether you're not sufficiently funny. You pound a podium one time too many, and it gets broadcast throughout the globe with critics and pundits jumping on your every move. Polls have become so notorious that candidates (Gore comes to mind) start to shape their own policies around what will help them the most in polls. Bush is a total sellout along this line, with his idiotic proposal to grant amnesty to over 5 million Mexican illegals purely as a means of pandering to the Hispanic vote to raise his credibility in "the polls." Please!!

I've debated running for Texas state congress many times over the past year or two, and I keep reaching the conclusion that I just wouldn't cut it in this day and age of sound-bites and pandering to interest groups. It just seems that if you really speak your mind, lay out your beliefs, and tell the voters "Here are my beliefs, I want to represent you -- elect me if you agree with my platform, and don't elect me if you disagree", then you don't stand a snowflake's chance in Hades.

I guess things could be a lot worse than being a manager at Dell Computer....

Cheers to you,
J.T.

 

[giant]

extremely logical suppostions "freeyourself", bravo

 

[Colleen1962]

> I really like the Libertarian Party in principle, but I think they take
> some of the unpopular positions with which I agree and take them perhaps a
> bit too far. As a guy who's mostly a conservative, the Libertarian themes
> of less government intervention and expanded individual freedoms are
> enticing, but I think the extent to which the LP stresses these probably
> doesn't take into account certain realities of our society.

> I personally think marijuana should be legalised -- it is FAR less
> dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes (particularly if ingested, not
> smoked), and it is silly to sell alcohol at the local grocery store whilst
> making weed a jailable crime. The LP agrees with that stance. But the LP
> also takes it further, saying the government really shouldn't be in the
> drug-banning business at all -- that makes me a bit uneasy with respect to
> things like LSD, cocaine, heroin, etc. I'm not saying I'm right about
> preferring those "hard" drugs remain illegal, because one could
> always raise the "line in the sand" argument, but it's just a
> gut reaction for me.

> Same goes with individual liberties. I am a huge proponent of individual
> liberties and against political correctness, Big Brother, etc. etc. But
> the LP extends this concept to EVERYBODY, whereas I draw a massive line
> between "American citizens" and "those who aren't American
> citizens." As such, I feel that illegal aliens in this country have
> no rights AT ALL beyond the basic civil and corporeal rights to not being
> tortured, abused, etc. I'm also stridently against immigration both legal
> and illegal --- my basic take is that if we shut down immigration
> (allowing small numbers from Western Europe, as well as some relatives of
> american citizens), then all of a sudden the threat of a 9/11 is greatly
> diminished as it becomes VERY difficult for middle-easterners to get into
> the country. Once you've protected your country in such a manner, then all
> of a sudden the Patriot Act (vile as it is) is not really needed anymore.
> So where the LP says "freedom for ALL!", I respond with
> "freedom for American citizens, and deport/block most everyone
> else"

> Some ask how i can be "conservative" yet "pro-choice."
> Easy. I'm for massive personal freedoms and liberties for American
> citizens, and this obviously includes women just as much as men. If you're
> a woman and a citizen, then who am I to tell you what you can or cannot do
> with your own body? I despise abortion personally, but that's my own
> problem, not anyone else's.

> The LP is intriguing for sure, I just fear that it's a bit overly
> simplistic to really work. And of course their "open borders"
> philosophy is the polar opposite of my opinion on one of the political
> subjects about which i feel most strongly.

> As for Gore..... yech. In all honesty, I would take Kerry over Gore. Gore
> was better in the late '80s when he ran in 1988 and his biggest claim to
> fame was being pro-environment. I respect very much the pro-environment,
> anti-big oil stances -- it's one of the Democratic Party's best assets.
> But Gore became a sellout, and flip-flopped worse than Kerry ever did. All
> Gore did for me in 2000 was to remind me just how great Bill Clinton was
> and what a pathetic shadow Gore was by comparison

> Lastly, concurred on the media. Now, it's no longer just about the
> meat-and-potato issues, it's about how good you look. It's about whether
> you blink too much, or whether you're not sufficiently funny. You pound a
> podium one time too many, and it gets broadcast throughout the globe with
> critics and pundits jumping on your every move. Polls have become so
> notorious that candidates (Gore comes to mind) start to shape their own
> policies around what will help them the most in polls. Bush is a total
> sellout along this line, with his idiotic proposal to grant amnesty to
> over 5 million Mexican illegals purely as a means of pandering to the
> Hispanic vote to raise his credibility in "the polls." Please!!

> I've debated running for Texas state congress many times over the past
> year or two, and I keep reaching the conclusion that I just wouldn't cut
> it in this day and age of sound-bites and pandering to interest groups. It
> just seems that if you really speak your mind, lay out your beliefs, and
> tell the voters "Here are my beliefs, I want to represent you --
> elect me if you agree with my platform, and don't elect me if you
> disagree", then you don't stand a snowflake's chance in Hades.

> I guess things could be a lot worse than being a manager at Dell
> Computer....

> Cheers to you,
> J.T.
I am impressed. You are actually a rational, intellgent person who thinks things through. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote! Now, let me get this straight, you are pro choice, pro legalizing marijuana ( and you are correct, alcohol is FAR more dangerous ). I used to read a journal called, "Reason", it's geared towards Libertarians and Ayn Rand fanatics. ( but I went through my Ayn period a long time ago ) Now, I agree with your stance regarding *hard* drugs- I sure wouldn't like the pilot of the airline I happened to be flying on to be on heroin or acid, meth, cocaine, etc. There DO need lines drawn, and then the Libertarian Party would be perfect. No, I am not for EVERYONE flowing into the US illegally or possibly legally, it would matter on each case. But, illegally, NO. I don't care if you are Elian Gonzalez, get your tiny butt back to Cuba. As for the media, your comments were right on the mark, J.T. It's all about *appeal* and how good you can fool people into voting for you. I heard today on MSNBC that both Kerry ( I'm not sure if he even speaks Spanish) and W are going on this incredibly popular show in Mexico, to land the Hispanic vote. This is going too far. I can't wait for this to be OVER. Now now, J.T. - I don't know you personally, but you *should* take a run at the Texas state congress! Why not? You're articulate, intelligent, and who gives a rat's ass about the glossy media image most expect. Think about it. Great reply. Colleen

 

[homeless chihuahua]

Im a hispanic who's traveled to the US on vacations and business quite a few times. I am a regular marihuana smoker and while in Africa two months ago I visited a country where being caught with pot (any amount) meant 3-5 years in jail. I was outraged and support your idea of its legalization. It is an individual choice to use hardcore drugs or abort but it is inhumane to deny that both should be banned because they actually involve killing human beings. I am Costa Rican (I suppose you haven't visited many countries nor your are interested in doing so since you are proposing to ban people from going into the US and would rather clam yourseves shut within your big 'free' country), and my country has been exploited in innumerable ways by the US: Forced us to accept other Central American immigrants into our country in exchange for 'funds' and/or 'fair trading terms', taken much of our land for commercially 'environmental' purposes, since you have killed all your natural resources and particularly Bush's administration has done everything within his power to endorse pollution in all its forms; and well, let's leave aside all the 'unjustified country invasion' isuee which you have so wisely left unmentioned.

I need a new US tourist VISA and the US Embassy has asked me for the following items:
- Bank account and social security statements for the last 3 months
- Certificates of all my properties
- Income reports and letter of recommendation from my current employer
- $100 (non refundable if they choose not to grant me the visa)
- I have to wait until Feb 6 for the appointment

I'm not going to deny that US dollars flowing in the country aren't good for our economy as far as all you tourists down here, but how can we just allow any american who just flails his passport demanding a stamp when we have to go through all this crap just to be able to do a three day business trip?

I hope most poor hispanics whose life in their country is so miserable to force them to look refuge in yours, who surely watched Bush and Kerry showing to this hispanic freak variety show (it's not Mexican, it is made by Univision which is a hispanic network in the US actually viewed in every single South American country) realize how incredibly unrespectful and disdainful it is to believe that they are welcome there, being it such a big lie as you have said.

To make a point of all my babbling, it is a blatant lie that any country can just isolate itself from the rest of the world and pretend they can survive, just as you manipulate little countries pretending to help them because you need them, or if you can't you just invade them, other countries also depend on your help, even Morrissey, so get down your pedestal . Do you think Cubans only flee to the US? No, they just do because it's closer, come over here we have tons of them here, also Nicaraguans, Colombians, you name it...you are welcome to come even!!
Pray for peace in the world

J