In article ,
says...
* *If there were*no independent or third party candidate
running for the 2004 presidential race,* I*might decide not to
vote.**Because between a chicken hawk**such as Bush and
a*chicken**politician like yourself, there is very little choice.*

There hasn't been a choice for a long time. All politicians will
support with speeches and votes, whatever will get them elected. People
like Nader, who haven't a chance of actually getting elected, are the
only ones with the freedom to say what they like.

It's really simple. Every time a politician takes a stand on an issue,
he ****es off some voters. The solution is not to take a stand on
anything you can avoid.

It's not a coincidence that the frantic drive to ensure that everyone is
a registered voter started in the same time frame as TV marketing. TV
is a powerful influence on voters, and the stupider they are, the easier
they are to influence. That's when politicians really started waffling
on the issues.

I don't have a solution, but we could do as good as we do now by drawing
names out of a hat :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Larry Blanchard wrote:

It's really simple. Every time a politician takes a stand on an
issue,
he ****es off some voters. The solution is not to take a stand on
anything you can avoid.


How true.

There is virtually nothing that either candidate can say or do between
now and November to gain additional votes. All they can do is loose
votes. "I was supporting X, but then I found out Y, but there's still no
way I'm voting for Z."

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgardener/index.html

hummm... I got a step sister went to school in Madison Wisconsin, hot bed of
activism. She was not politically involved actually, but said she stood in an alley
and threw a brick into a demonstration to get things going. Yes, she is addled.
something of the same sort happened in Tienamin square in China. rabble rousers
attacked, burned and killed some of the troops including burning tanks. that is one
of the really big triggers of what happened after that. I heard this first hand from
people who were in China visiting their son who was a student there. There are
assholes and idiots everywhere, people with their own agenda or no agenda but like
"excitement". Ingrid

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

wrote:

I didnt see any of it, and I went to school with vets. How much of this did you
actually see in NY?
-snip-

Just as a datapoint-- I came home from Vietnam in July of 1970 to
rural upstate New York.

I was *never* disrespected, and was even thanked a few times. I also
drank for free for 30 days until I reported to first North Carolina,
then Virginia---- Nobody ever gave me shit about my service.


Maybe because I was a pretty lean mean 6'3"--- maybe I just never ran
into any idjits. There were a couple VVAW guys in the barracks in
VA. We all worked together during the week & went our separate ways
on the weekends.

Jim



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Rules of critical thinking

1. who is quoting the text? what do they have to gain from quoting that text?
2. read the quoted speech in its entirety.

Ingrid

(The Watcher) wrote:
So when he's quoted one time saying the exact opposite of what he said the other
time it's made up? If that was true, it would be easy to deal with. The question
on his message forum doesn't seem to think it's quite that easy to deal with.
They seem to think there is some justification for the perception that he has
been Flip Flopping. Of course, they are his campaign people. What do they know?




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:11:37 GMT, Jim Elbrecht opined:

(...)

I love America. Freedom, however, is not free.

Nice bumper sticker--- use your head.
-snip-

Jim

Um, the above is a direct quote of our leader, President Bush 43.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Board With Kerry, The No-Free-Speech Candidate:

Even his supporters keep saying vote for Kerry because Bush is just so
appallingly awful. I keep looking for a POSITIVE reason to vote for Kerry,
but every day seems to further guarantee that voting for him is going to
instigate the gag reflex.

Previously he distanced himself from the Woopi Goldberg non-scandal of
making a minor joke within a major truth about Bush, & being roundly
criticized for being almost vulgar (even if no more so than Dick "****
You" Cheney). Now there are two comediennes Kerry is distancing himself
from -- Woopi plus Margaret Cho.

Cho was to be a volunteer, unpaid benefit entertainer for the misnomered
"Unity" event by the Human Rights Campaign, which Human Rights turn out
not to included free speech. The (dis)Unity event will coincide with the
Democratic National Convention, & Cho was un-invited to perform because
2) The (dis)Unity fairies thought Cho might be so interesting she would
siphon attention away from the issues of the event (which is not all human
rights, but gay rights); & 2) the (dis)Unity fairies did not want Cho's
raunchiness to reflect on Kerry the way they think Woopi's raunchiness
reflected on Kerry.

The (Dis)Unity fairies first became alarmed when they found out Cho had
been escorted from a show in San Diego for her take on on current events
-- though anyone concerned with even moderate rights would have wanted to
scoot up as close to Cho as they could get, having been hired to speak her
mind comedically then getting escorted outdoors for having done so. Even
the innocuous Linda Rondstat was denied access to her own hotel room after
the Alladin hotel cancelled her performances & escorted her outside merely
for having dedicated a song to Michael Moore. This anti-free-speech
environment is not one that alleged Democrats, Kerry supporters, or anyone
who can even think, should be & pandering to.

If these are the kinds of people supportive of Kerry, there's something
very wrong. When Kerry distances himself even from the simplest issues of
free speech, he proves himself a man unworthy of trust & with no
leadership capacity.

Cho's comedy has been compared to that of Richard Pryor, George Carlin, &
Lenny Bruce, & her brand of humor has also been called "Kinisonian." She
is certainly capable of toning it down & probably would have done so if
asked to (& that would have been bad enough), doing her kids-are-present
or free-tv versions. The nature of her humor has hardly been a secret
until now, but the Human Rights Campaign had no problem with hiring her
until after such anti-free-speech events as her ejection fromn the San
Diego performance, right-wing flack against Woopi Goldberg, or Linda
Ronstadt being fired for a simple song dedication she'd been doing for
weeks. Any kind of "Rights" organization, upon observing such diminishing
of rights, should NOT be out in front of the issue supporting a lack of
rights. Karen Taussig, Cho's manager, said the rescinded invitation was
due to the organization's desire to pander to Kerry who distanced himself
from Woopi & so certainly would not applaud Cho, & the HRC spokesman
indeed referenced the Woopi Goldberg incident as their reason for
cancelling Cho's performance.

Dipshit Mark Shields speaking for the HRC said "The event is designed to
be about the unity of the community behind John Kerry," & in a later
interview said the firing of Cho was "about wanting to keep the focus on
the unity of the gay community." Because, apparently, divisiveness is
unity & war is peace. Dykes 'round here now assum the Human Rights
Campaign is run by a bunch of ****ing sissy nitwits who wouldn't know a
human right if it beat them up in the park. The National Gay & Lesbian
Task Force has justifiably withdrawn from the event not wanting to be part
of an event which is now exclusively identified with No Free Speech
Allowed.

Hooray for the NGLTF -- hiss boo for the Kerry-suckup sissies of the
seriously misnomered Human Rights Campaign. Margaret Cho was last year's
recipient for the Task Force Leadership Award for her ongoing, sincere, &
effective work for the gay & lesbian community; & the ACLU is set to honor
her this coming September with their First Amendment Award. But the Human
Rights Campaign thinks sucking up to the Kerry standard is what matters.

There are now unbounded depths to HRC's merited shame, their devisive
behavior within the gay community, their SELL-OUT to the Kerry campaign's
lowest behavior, & their desire to pander the Bush ideal of free speech
excluding comics like Woopi & Margert & singers like Linda -- though of
course it's fine that Dennis Miller tells anti-fag jokes about
Kerry/Edwards at Bush fundraising events & rallies.

For the Task Force statement of support for Cho, & Cho's publicity release
on this topic, see this page:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0722-03.htm

If Kerry had any sense he'd have his people on the horn to get BOTH Woopi
AND Margaret at the Convention, slapping the no-free-speech thugs in their
collective faces. But nooooooo, his people want DISTANCE.

It gets harder every day, but I have to keep reminding myself, with Bush
the other option, even a dog's pecker wearing a straw hat would be a
better choice. So give Kerry a straw hat.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"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

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:33:04 -0500, Mark Anderson
wrote:

In article says...
This summary should be archived in case John Kerry wins. He hasn't even been
elected president yet, and he's already talking about the possibility of making
war on other countries. Is anybody surprised by this? Was anybody expecting
something different?

To be fair, John Kerry got caught in a question about a hypothetical
situation whether or not he would authorize a pre-emptive strike.
Hypotheticals are tricky in that nothing in the world is entirely
black and white. Kerry handled that question badly because he is either
a very bad candidate or getting some bad advice. At this point, with
Bush's approval numbers so bad, Kerry should be way ahead in the race but
he's only dead even. Would Kerry pull a Bush style pre-emptive war? I
don't think so.

From his response, it looks like he would if he thought it was best. Seems like
he's not all that different from Bush in that respect.

If you vote for Bush,

Don't plan on doing that, either.

In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:33:04 -0500, Mark Anderson
wrote:

he's not all that different from Bush in that respect.

If you vote for Bush,

Don't plan on doing that, either.

Below is the text of an e-mail I received today from a presumed
progressive who will not vote for Kerry. It was unsigned, so maybe it's
just one of those things that make the e-mail rounds, but it all seemed
tragically dead-on to me:

------------

*Dear Senator Kerry,
*
You**and your organizational supporters continue to send me letters*and
emails requesting that I support you in defeating President Bush in the
2004 election.**Like most Americans I would like nothing better than to
see*the*end of the*policies of the Bush*Administration*.* These*
policies*have turned a surplus into a deficit,*increased**international
and domestic*dangers*to Americans,*and isolated our country
diplomatically.**At home, the*Bush policies**have been a disaster for the
great majority of Americans, creating ever more joblessness and
homelessness, loss of health care,*security, privacy, and freedom.**The
2004 presidential election is**an opportunity to address*these
failures.**I*want*a*candidate**who*recognizes the*crises that we face and
proposes real solutions to change course.* You are not that candidate. You
do not act*or speak as if there*were*any* crisis to be resolved. What you
have to say about issues of war and peace is either*alarming or trivial.
*
Please understand that this election is not a popularity contest, as far
as I am concerned.* I do not care*that**you served in Vietnam and**that
*George Bush did not.* I don't care*whether*you had better grades**at
Yale *than Bush.**I*am not impressed*that you present yourself as**a
better*champion of minorities and the poor.**But I do care about your
voting record and where you stand on the issues.**Here is*what this means:
*
1. On Iraq: you advocate sending more troops and bullying NATO and other
allies to ³share² in the illegal occupation of Iraq. That position is
worse*than the Bush position, not better.**First,* it not only disregards
international law, which says we have no right to be in Iraq, but it also
compounds the problem by**pressuring*other countries*to participate in the
illegality.* I don't* suppose* you hold
these*views*opportunistically,**wanting*to appear tough to ³centrist²
voters.** *I think you**honestly*believe that we have the right to force
ourselves on the Iraqis.** *That makes you just as dangerous as George
Bush.

2.*On Civil**Liberties: you have voted for the*egregiously unpatriotic
³Patriot Act.²** *That is all that anyone who*cares deeply for*the United
States¹ Bill of Rights needs to know,* to**recognize*that you are*not
a*civil libertarian.

3.*On*Civil Rights for Homosexuals, your difference from*Bush¹s positions
do not make*your positions*laudable.* While your voting record on civil
rights for homosexuals*is better than his positions,*your unashamed
supposition*that you or anyone else has the right to deny a basic civil
right, such as*marriage, to anyone else, a right from which you yourself
fully benefit, is*despicable.**

4.*On*Fair Trade and jobs,** you have supported all the major trade
agreements that the Republicans have supported. Now you say that if
elected president you would put all such agreements under a 120-day review
and take unspecified "necessary steps" if they are found to be unfair to
Americans.** *Again, I*look at your voting record**to make up my mind*
whether you can be trusted*on this.* I think you are not to be trusted.* *


5.*Health Ca* Forty-five million Americans have no health care
insurance*or inadequate coverage despite*more money per capita being spent
on health care* in the US than anywhere else in the world.* Our infant
mortality statistics are worse than those of fifteen other countries.
Still you remain opposed to universal health care.**

6.*You propose to cut the deficit in half within four years while
continuing to increase defense spending.** *Your math does not add up,*
even if you**were to propose**increased* taxes on the wealthiest
Americans. The current defense budget is bigger in real terms than the
average**it was *during the cold war despite persistent questions**about
waste and lack of sufficient* over*sight, questions that you yourself do
not raise.

7. On the Israeli-Palestinian*conflict, your rhetoric*matches* your
record, and they are both*wrong.* You have supported Israel¹s illegal
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which is nothing short of ethnic
cleansing. The*ongoing sickening destruction of Palestinian society,* to
establish and defend illegal Israeli settlements paid for by US tax
payers,**is thanks in part to your*supine voting record in the Senate,
along with that of other Democrats and Republicans.***

8.* On fighting terror you are as hypocritical and dishonest as Bush.*
You have chosen to alarm the public about*the possible dangers of ³nukes²
in Iran and North Korea.**Using fear to prepare the public for*an*illegal
war is a*wellworn Bush*tactic, and*will**very likely*lead to more
anti-American terror.
*
Your record in the Senate and the positions you have taken*leave much to
be desired.* As for*your strategy,*many people*believe*your chicken
approach to campaigning*to be a strategic decision that you have**had
*to*make.* They tell informed Americans that you are actually opposed to
the Iraq war, but for political reasons must*hide this.* The theory is
that you are trying to capture the centrist voters.* Whatever its lack of
honesty, I*might*believe*it to be*your motivation if the polls were
suggesting the opposite of what they*do*in fact*indicate.**But when**so
many people*are opposing the*Iraq war,*as they now do, all that is needed
is a leader who will**be*a leader and say what must be said in opposition
to the war.* It would have made you popular despite your dull
rhetoric.**Instead, you*are continually*losing the opportunity to attack
George Bush on the war* and on other*vulnerable**issues.**Many people
credit you for helping turn public opinion against the Vietnam War thirty
years ago.* But*you yourself had supported and*fought in the war, and
only*later changed your mind.* How many more people must*die in Iraq,* be
jobless and homeless and without hope in our own country,* before
you*come to your senses on these current issues?***
*
*It*is not clear what you and the Democrats (*with some*notable
exceptions) have to offer.* On the one hand, you do not use the**many
*opportunities**available to you*to discredit the*Bush Administration.*
On the other hand,* you complain when someone like Ralph Nader does speak
to the issues. *I understand that you**might *feel the progressive vote is
owed to you.* I am sure*that Ralph Nader*infuriates you,* in*providing*
informed voters with a real*alternative.* Let me*put your mind at ease
about*that.** *If there were*no independent or third party candidate
running for the 2004 presidential race,* I*might decide not to
vote.**Because between a chicken hawk**such as Bush and
a*chicken**politician like yourself, there is very little choice.*

--
"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

In article ,
says...

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

I'm not thrilled with Kerry either - I'm an independent. But I think
that getting rid of Bush may well be the equivalent of Jefferson getting
rid of Adams (remember reading about the Alien and Sedition acts?).
Given that, I'll vote for Kerry as the best way to get rid of Bush.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:14:29 GMT, wrote:

if you take all the speeches he said and quoted out of context you could make him
sound like he was selling his mother into slavery if you wanted. it is called cut
and paste. it is made up. it is a lot of bushwa.

So when he's quoted one time saying the exact opposite of what he said the other
time it's made up? If that was true, it would be easy to deal with. The question
on his message forum doesn't seem to think it's quite that easy to deal with.
They seem to think there is some justification for the perception that he has
been Flip Flopping. Of course, they are his campaign people. What do they know?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:18:57 -0700, Tom Jaszewski wrote:

(snip)
There are no heroes in war, only victims.....


Nice dismissal of the actions of a lot of heroes. Easy for you to do that, isn't
it?

As a part of the "Vietnam
Veterans Against the War" campaign I saw NONE of the idiocies
overblown by blowhards and republican chicken hawks!

Well, since YOU saw none, it certainly couldn't have happened. Any stories of
other people who claimed it happened to them or they saw it happen were just
figments of their imagination. Speaking of know-nothings, did you learn your
philosophy from the ostriches?

Once again, OVERBLOWN!

Basically irrelevant, anyway, since I wasn't really referring to the "hippies
spitting on GI's". My reference was to the way the country(the USA) as a whole
treated its soldiers, sending them off to war, then treating them like criminals
when they returned(when they weren't just ignored).

What was
outstanding was the war mongers republicans inability to deal with
agent orange. That was the real slap in Vietnam veterans faces! Not
some highed out hippy!

I didn't even bother mentioning hippies. I was referring to the behavior of the
country as a whole, which I still consider abominable.

Yes abominable behavior! It's still hard to believe the Amerikan
public allowed the war to continue!

Interesting you have no criticisms of that same Army of heroes that
never got justice from Agent Orange exposure.

They should be criticized for being exposed to Agent Orange and never getting
justice for it? I don't see where they deserve criticism for that.

I guess your precious
Army hadn't much regard for it's heroes either?

That Army has been trying to get justice for decades since then. They've
achieved some success. Should they be criticized for not being 100% successful?
I don't think so. BTW, my "precious" Army doesn't control the civilian
government and how IT treats its soldiers. Civilians do that. The same civilians
who start the wars and send the soldiers off to fight those wars.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:08:28 GMT, wrote:

that is crap. it has nothing to do with how they are treated when they "get home".

I disagree with this. I think if a country has the guts to send soldiers to
fight a war, it OWES them at the least a welcome home of some sort. The welcome
they got from Vietnam was a disgrace.

all this nonsense about how badly the Viet Nam veterans were treated is bushwa
distraction for the real problem which is that government did almost nothing to help
them deal with their drug addictions (started in Viet Nam) nor their post traumatic
stress syndrome... for which there is really no cure.

It might not be a cure, but treating veterans like pariahs probably doesn't help
them get any better, either.


The correlation is how much
horror they have seen or committed and how crazy they are going to be afterwards. And
medical and mental care for many is going to be a lifetime of support. something our
citizens seems to be unwilling to think about much less make sure it is going to be
there.
the gov'ments response to agent orange, gulf war syndrome etc is the fund a
commission to look into it and take enough time that most of the victims die before
getting help. it has started already for our kids coming home with parts missing or
dead... we are not allowed to even see images of the coffins. and the seriously
injured are already dropping thru the cracks and due to the extended tour many of
them have lost their jobs.
I dont know anybody who treated returning VN vets badly when they returned.

You mean other than ignoring them as if they didn't exist or hadn't been gone?

Maybe
there was a couple incidents, they made the news but it sure wasnt the norm or
average. Warm welcomes by strangers really isnt therapy for the horrors they have
seen and been thru. The real bad treatment was our gov'ment abdicating
responsibility for them after they returned home.

It's not just the government I hold responsible, but the government had a
responsibility there. As an example, our local reserve unit went to Iraq last
February. They left on an icy February morning around 5:30 in the morning, and
there were still a bunch of local people there to see them off. We brought food
and coffee, and gave them a send-off. In June they returned. Many local people
were there to see them return, in addition to their family members. We'll also
be having an official Welcome Back ceremony in a couple of weeks. I still think
whether anyone supports this war(or any war) is irrelevant. Showing support for
the soldiers isn't the same as supporting any war.
(The Watcher) wrote:
The emotional damage could be a lot less if this country treated them better
when they returned.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:14:02 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:51:15 -0400, (D) opined:

I"m smart enough to know that G.W.Bush,
has kept the country safe from any terrorist attack for 2 1/2 yrs. But I
guess you have to be really smart to see that, and to see that Al Gore
or John Kerry are not even in the same league as George W. Bush.

How do you explain that a teenager was able to get two box cutters onto planes,
through security gates, at two airports? Bush has nothing to do with terrorist
attack cessation. Matter of fact, he said, "Bring it on." So, if you think
about a thousand dead kids (soldiers) and about seven thousand others who lost
limbs or are paralyzed or worse is protecting us, you have a rare view of the
term.

This seems to be where the "thousand dead kids (soldiers)" first popped up, so I
figured you should be the one to set the threshhold for exactly what you're
calling a "kid". From this it looks like ALL the soldiers are considered kids.
Surely that can't be right. Maybe a specific age could be proposed. Of course,
that would mean the number of dead "kids" would have to be reduced in that
statement, which wouldn't give it the same impact. Reducing the impact seems to
be going against the purpose of calling them kids in the first place, though.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher)
opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good
choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry
may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and
none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I don't plan on voting for either of those bozos. Their proven records
tell me I
wouldn't want EITHER of them as president.

The fact remains that you will get either Bush or Kerry. Not voting won't
get you "none of the above."

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:53:53 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:

(snip)
If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry
may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and
none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.

I think it is unlike that Kerry will run the government based on some
religious superstition.

No, Kerry seems more likely to run the government based on some
unrealistic idea
of a Nanny State, with big dreams involving the government doing
everything for
everybody. Of course, somebody is going to have to pay for that, and I
don't see
Kerry raiding his wife's trust funds, so he'll have to get the money from
the
liberal's favorite source, the taxpayers. No problem. American taxpayers
have
deep pockets. :/

Actually, Kerry has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy and that
would include his wife. You give me the impression that the choice is
between a big spending Kerry and a thrifty Bush. That simply isn't the
case. Bush is such a huge spender that even the truly conservative (as
opposed to the neo-cons) are starting to revolt. Bush has already spent
money that will come from future taxes - taxes that will be paid by you and
your children. Unfortunately Bush has decided to spend your money on a war
in Iraq. More money is being spent to rebuild that country while people go
without here. The defense contractors and the Carlisle Group are raking in
your tax money as we speak. Money for social programs is being ****ed away
on "faith based" programs that are about as sound as witchcraft and alchemy.
Given the choice between socialism and fascism, I'll take socialism. You
can have Bush's "big Brother" state.