In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Nope, I don't see it a a choice between Kerry and Bush. I see it as a choice
between ALL the candidates on the ballot.



I prefer neither of those choices.

In a close election, which this promises to be, that's called throwing
away your vote.

Voting the way OTHERS insist you vote before they will acknowledge that
voting even matters is tantamount to not voting. If voting is EVER not a
waste, then it's also not a waste for those who didn't win. That presumes
value to the system. If voting is a waste, that presumes worthlessness to
the system. Let's hope those who parrot "waste your vote, waste your vote"
are wrong, & every vote is good for something, even if it isn't for your
candidate or the winning candidate.

If someone wants to vote for a dorky third party, that's their right, &
for others to parrot that to exercise one's right is "a waste" is just
another way that politicians lie, & it's sad to hear honest activists
parroting the lie. It translates "Vote for me or you're a dumb ****er." It
is galling that I will vote for Kerry because I'd rather have a useless
turd than a dangerous psychopath for president. But how much greater this
nation would be if we could vote for something anyone other than the usual
insider millionaires who pretty much collectively got us in the sorry
pickle our national has gotten to.

You & I may think that this of all voting years, a major-party vote, in
particular a major-party vote for Democrats across the board, matters more
than ever. Instead of the usual choice between a lesser of two evils, we
have a choice between a flat-out psycho who loves only his fellow oil
millionaires, or a boring turd whose foul-odored mouth spews milquetoast
wishiwashiness & two-faced cliches at every bend -- afraid to be in favor
of gay rights because that's "a state issue" & gay rights are my rights,
so the most I can hope for from Kerry is when he takes a baseball bat to
this minority, he'll bare down less murderously than Bush is doing. Hardly
a wonderful choice. But he'll never get us out of any wars, he'll just
insist on being nicer to the French about it. He'll always be afraid of
women's reproduction right because already his church, which is VERY
important to him, has told him he will be denied communion if he takes an
effective women's right stance. He may have some surfacy-nice things to
say for black america, but he's never made a decision that included black
voices in policy design, whereas oddly enough Bush has throughout his
creepy career AT LEAST had room for more minority involvvement, at every
level, than any national politician Democrate OR Republican in history, so
Kerry talks the talk but in actions he displays a clear belief in the
Great White Burden to make these decisions without ******s & spics getting
in the way.

Even his "tax the rich" stance is an old ploy & no president promising to
tax the rich has failed to make the rest of us pay more way more taxes
too, so that's just oldest cliche kissing-babies ploy & means nothing
real. Bush has not rolled back any taxes, he's merely shifted tax burdens
to states that raise the taxes. When Kerry restores the federal tax rates
& then some, it will not mean a role-back of the higher state & city taxes
imposed on us by Bush policies. We'll merely have, in all,
super-heightened tax loads on ordinary citizens.

It was Kerry's decision that Senator Clinton not be given prime-time
speaking time at the Democratic Convention. Democratic voters keep saying
they want Kerry to restore the so-called good times of the Clinton years,
meaning I suppose further support for the World Trade Organization for
which we have Bill Clinton to blame. But I'm afraid it isn't Bill's
conservative economics that Kerry is repudiating, but the Clintons'
collectively failed liberal idealism. And yes they were liberal idealists
who WANTED a single-payer plan for medicine who doomed us to HTMOs, who
WANTED gay equality in the military but made things vastly worse with
don't-ask-don't-tell. As a Democrat, Clinton was a bad president who
achieved very little, but as a man willing to compromise with the devil,
he furthered conservative agendas by bending over to receive group-sex
from republican congressmen. But symbolicly, Hilary's presence stands for
the liberal agenda that never got off the ground, rather than the
conservative achievement; she symbolized Bill's eradicating of a national
debt. And Kerry wants no part of it. He intends to raise taxes, period, on
people whose local taxes have already been maxed out.

On every issue that matters, Kerry is NOT a good candidate, has NEVER
presented a credible plan. What's his "plan" for improved health care
access? Less paperwork! I kid you not. He promises less paperwork, &
that's all. This man is a piece of shit with nothing worthwhile up his
sleeve.

But laid up alongside Bush, who despises the Constitution that is the only
thing restraining these millionaire politicians, a dog's pecker in a straw
hat would be an improvement. So give Kerry the hat & vote for him. A
president Congress stymies is better than a president Congress fast-lanes
for the oil-tycoon agenda.

BTW, I'm wondering if Bush is going to engineer a "crisis" in October to
ensure his re-election. Or "postpone" the election.

This week the whitehouse was "outed" for pressuring Pakistan to "kill
Osama before election day." It will not matter after the election, because
Bush now believes his best chance of winning is if he can get a timely
photo-op next to Bin Ladin's severed head. His second best chance is if
Osama's scattered crew does something big enough to scare the bejabbers
out of Americans to get most of us "behind our leader" as seems to happen
in such crises, but not so big a scare as to make everyhone realize Bush
is as much the cause of it as any single person ever can be. I'm sure
there's barely enough humanity left in Bush that he'd rather be
photographed holding up Osama's head than wearing a fireman helmet for the
photo-op atop the corpses another Twin Towers catastrophe. But either
choice will do the job for him, & he'll be grateful for either.

-paghat the ratgirl

I think it was Will Rogers who said "The Republicans want to take my
money and give it to the rich. The Democrats want to take my money and
give it to the poor. I'd like to keep it myself, but if those are the
choices I'd just as soon it went to the poor."

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com