2004 Electoral Vote Calculator.
8/6/04, 10:58 AM
#62
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8+August 6, 2004, 11:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (thezeppelin8 @ August 6, 2004, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-EleanorsMine@August 6, 2004, 9:46 AM
Lets Flip Flop:
Here are things most of us would like to see happen, but that never will
IF April Ruled the world:
People in the military would be paid their worth, and overrated movie stars would not. Why pay some "actress" 20 Mil. a film and pay a serviceman $250 or so a week?That ain't right. And also, no draft-My child will go out of the country before he is drafted against his will.
I would not be "going to _______ " if I do something the Churchy people do not like. Right, You preach to me but I can't preach to you. For Instance: Alabama has no lottery because we are in this stupid bible belt and will go to the aforementioned if we gamble. Right. I am going to get poked on the hiney with a pitchfork if I don't toe the line.
Education would be that- no more teachers showing up to draw a paycheck to put movies on for the kids to dumb themselves up with.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't want my guns took away or those of other law abiders, but I don't want people who shouldn't have em to have them either.
ENGLISH would be the official language of the USA, If you come here, learn it. If not deal with it.
Lets Flip Flop:
Here are things most of us would like to see happen, but that never will
IF April Ruled the world:
People in the military would be paid their worth, and overrated movie stars would not. Why pay some "actress" 20 Mil. a film and pay a serviceman $250 or so a week?That ain't right. And also, no draft-My child will go out of the country before he is drafted against his will.
I would not be "going to _______ " if I do something the Churchy people do not like. Right, You preach to me but I can't preach to you. For Instance: Alabama has no lottery because we are in this stupid bible belt and will go to the aforementioned if we gamble. Right. I am going to get poked on the hiney with a pitchfork if I don't toe the line.
Education would be that- no more teachers showing up to draw a paycheck to put movies on for the kids to dumb themselves up with.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't want my guns took away or those of other law abiders, but I don't want people who shouldn't have em to have them either.
ENGLISH would be the official language of the USA, If you come here, learn it. If not deal with it.
shame on you april [/b][/quote]
Hence the fact, I do not rule the world.
I can absolutely speak from experience on most of this stuff..
My husband was in the military, He was HIGHLY trained and didn't make squat. The only good thing was excellent health care and affordable groceries.
I have a trusty handgun, and I have no desire to go shoot up a mcdonalds or random people on the street or people who make me mad, but if someone breaks in on my house, they will be sorry.
And also, if I don't choose to be a southern baptist, thats my thing. Not someone elses place to tell me which Religion to choose, or if I will burn for eternity if I go against their beliefs.
Healthcare? Anyone else see a problem?
Oh-also free sports cars for everyone above the age of 25, and SUVS and minivans would be outlawed
I DO NOT MEAN OFFENSE TO ANYONE SO PLEASE DO NOT take me wrong.And If I offended anyone, I do aplogize sincerely.
8/6/04, 10:59 AM
#63
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@August 6, 2004, 11:56 AM
I am Mexican-American, my parents came here 22 years ago. You dont know anything about this issue, so i suggest no more comments on this.
I am Mexican-American, my parents came here 22 years ago. You dont know anything about this issue, so i suggest no more comments on this.
8/6/04, 11:04 AM
#66
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh yea...
how about we not conjure up so many wars and not have as many service men, there is WAY TOO MUCH MONEY BEING SPENT ON WAR. With the extra money we can pay teachers what they are supposed to be paid. With more money, teachers would be able to get more resources and materials to teach OUR FUTURE a lot better. The shortage of materials and resources is ridiculous. In Los Angeles, teachers must pay out of their own pocket if they want extra materials for their class. ITS RIDICULOUS.
and dont get me started on this b.s. "no child left behind" crap.
I'm 21 and in my fourth year of college. Studying to become a teacher.
how about we not conjure up so many wars and not have as many service men, there is WAY TOO MUCH MONEY BEING SPENT ON WAR. With the extra money we can pay teachers what they are supposed to be paid. With more money, teachers would be able to get more resources and materials to teach OUR FUTURE a lot better. The shortage of materials and resources is ridiculous. In Los Angeles, teachers must pay out of their own pocket if they want extra materials for their class. ITS RIDICULOUS.
and dont get me started on this b.s. "no child left behind" crap.
I'm 21 and in my fourth year of college. Studying to become a teacher.
8/6/04, 11:06 AM
#68
V6 Member
Join Date: February 10, 2004
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@August 6, 2004, 10:35 AM
here's a little video i found. its graphic
video
here's a little video i found. its graphic
video
It is correct, Evil will triumph if good men do nothing.
That is exactly what our children . . . let me repeat . . . OUR CHILDREN . . . will look like if we do or did nothing.
Yes, you will find civilians, including children, that are injured and killed in a war. I weep and pray for those people.
Remember, we didn't start this fight.
8/6/04, 11:11 AM
#70
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@August 6, 2004, 12:07 PM
oh yea...
how about we not conjure up so many wars and not have as many service men, there is WAY TOO MUCH MONEY BEING SPENT ON WAR. With the extra money we can pay teachers what they are supposed to be paid. With more money, teachers would be able to get more resources and materials to teach OUR FUTURE a lot better. The shortage of materials and resources is ridiculous. In Los Angeles, teachers must pay out of their own pocket if they want extra materials for their class. ITS RIDICULOUS.
and dont get me started on this b.s. "no child left behind" crap.
I'm 21 and in my fourth year of college. Studying to become a teacher.
oh yea...
how about we not conjure up so many wars and not have as many service men, there is WAY TOO MUCH MONEY BEING SPENT ON WAR. With the extra money we can pay teachers what they are supposed to be paid. With more money, teachers would be able to get more resources and materials to teach OUR FUTURE a lot better. The shortage of materials and resources is ridiculous. In Los Angeles, teachers must pay out of their own pocket if they want extra materials for their class. ITS RIDICULOUS.
and dont get me started on this b.s. "no child left behind" crap.
I'm 21 and in my fourth year of college. Studying to become a teacher.
In our case, the parents pay for extra material, and the poor teachers are WAY underpaid. On the other side, there are PLENTY of teachers who should be banned from teaching forever.
And also- I think we need to get out of Iraq.
8/6/04, 11:11 AM
#71
V6 Member
Join Date: February 10, 2004
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8+August 6, 2004, 11:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (thezeppelin8 @ August 6, 2004, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-duhler@August 6, 2004, 10:09 AM
Remember, we didn't start this fight.
Remember, we didn't start this fight.
I don't know . . . maybe you should ask some of your leading democrats:
(From www.snopes.com)
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
8/6/04, 11:13 AM
#72
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we have a lot more enemies now then we had before. the U.S. is by itself in this war. why do you think so many countries do not support the war. and with every person held hostage (mind you, not by iraquis, but by extremist. remember them, they were the ones we were suposed to stop, but now the war is against a country that is being invaded for their oil), there is less and less support.
8/6/04, 11:18 AM
#73
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@August 6, 2004, 12:16 PM
we have a lot more enemies now then we had before. the U.S. is by itself in this war. why do you think so many countries do not support the war. and with every person held hostage (mind you, not by iraquis, but by extremist. remember them, they were the ones we were suposed to stop, but now the war is against a country that is being invaded for their oil), there is less and less support.
we have a lot more enemies now then we had before. the U.S. is by itself in this war. why do you think so many countries do not support the war. and with every person held hostage (mind you, not by iraquis, but by extremist. remember them, they were the ones we were suposed to stop, but now the war is against a country that is being invaded for their oil), there is less and less support.
8/6/04, 11:20 AM
#74
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again i ask
what did iraq do????
all of these quotes dont magically put WMD in hussein's hands
i agree that hussein was a terrible leader. but the U.S. had no right to go in iraq and kill so many people. this war seems to be endless and can only get worse. now we have more problems then before
what did iraq do????
all of these quotes dont magically put WMD in hussein's hands
i agree that hussein was a terrible leader. but the U.S. had no right to go in iraq and kill so many people. this war seems to be endless and can only get worse. now we have more problems then before
8/6/04, 11:22 AM
#75
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@August 6, 2004, 12:23 PM
again i ask
what did iraq do????
all of these quotes dont magically put WMD in hussein's hands
i agree that hussein was a terrible leader. but the U.S. had no right to go in iraq and kill so many people. this war seems to be endless and can only get worse. now we have more problems then before
again i ask
what did iraq do????
all of these quotes dont magically put WMD in hussein's hands
i agree that hussein was a terrible leader. but the U.S. had no right to go in iraq and kill so many people. this war seems to be endless and can only get worse. now we have more problems then before
We should be over in afghanistan hunting the people who DID attack us, not killing servicemen for no reason but personal over in Iraq.
8/6/04, 11:22 AM
#76
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and for the record, i am neither a republican nor demy. both sides are wrong in many issues IMO. but this election is about selecting the lesser of two evils
8/6/04, 11:22 AM
#77
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by EleanorsMine+August 6, 2004, 10:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EleanorsMine @ August 6, 2004, 10:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-thezeppelin8@August 6, 2004, 12:23 PM
again i ask
what did iraq do????
all of these quotes dont magically put WMD in hussein's hands
i agree that hussein was a terrible leader. but the U.S. had no right to go in iraq and kill so many people. this war seems to be endless and can only get worse. now we have more problems then before
again i ask
what did iraq do????
all of these quotes dont magically put WMD in hussein's hands
i agree that hussein was a terrible leader. but the U.S. had no right to go in iraq and kill so many people. this war seems to be endless and can only get worse. now we have more problems then before
We should be over in afghanistan hunting the people who DID attack us, not killing servicemen for no reason but personal over in Iraq. [/b][/quote]
exactly
8/6/04, 11:24 AM
#78
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@August 6, 2004, 12:25 PM
and for the record, i am neither a republican nor demy. both sides are wrong in many issues IMO. but this election is about selecting the less of two evils
and for the record, i am neither a republican nor demy. both sides are wrong in many issues IMO. but this election is about selecting the less of two evils
You got Dubya who is dumb as a bag of hammers
or
Kerry who frankly scares the pee out of me.
I don't know which one is going to pull us down more!
8/6/04, 11:26 AM
#79
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the people i blame the most for the condition the world is in:
big corporations
big corporations
Real democracy comes from waking up!
by Howard Zinn and Gary Krane
The political culture of the United States is obsessed with and dominated by voting. Every election year is accompanied by the media's and the politicians' obsession with persuading Americans that voting for one candidate or another (and only if they are Democrat or Republican, of course) is the most important act of citizenship.
We get high on voting and forget that whether presidents have been Republican or Democrat, impotent or oversexed, they have followed the same basic policies. Whether crooks or Boy Scouts, handsome or homely, agile or clumsy, they have taxed the poor; subsidized the rich; squandered the nation's commonwealth (our minerals, airwaves, water and forests); wasted our taxes on bombers, missiles, ships and other corporate welfare; ignored the decay of the cities; and done so little for poor minority kids that for every Afro-American in college, five are now in prison, and for every Latino in college, three are in prison.
Harry Truman was blunt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wily. And Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were charming. But the first three spent billions and sent armies to Asia to defend dictators and massacre more than 2 million of the people we claimed to be helping, and the latter three again spent billions of our taxes to also arm and prop up dictators and oligarchies, and to subvert democratic movements against those governments in places like Indonesia, El Salvador and Guatemala, ending in murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. John F. Kennedy was witty; Carter was "caring"; George Bush, the elder, was firm; and Reagan said he was against big government. But all expanded our federal budgets enormously by spending hundreds of billions building up grotesquely huge nuclear weapons systems (we continue building B-2 bombers at $2 billion apiece) at the expense of providing a great public education system, health care for all Americans regardless of income, jobs that pay a living wage and mass transit for all of our cities.
Despite the decimation of the former Soviet Union, Al Gore and George W. Bush both want to continue this military spending madness, which year after year consumes more than 50 percent of our discretionary federal budget (the budget that the president and Congress determine). And Bush has the gall to claim he is against big government.
Nixon was corrupt and Gerald Ford straightforward, Reagan endearing and Clinton someone who claimed to feel the pain of the poor. But all coldly cut essential benefits for the poor and gave hundreds of billions of dollars of favors instead to rich corporations and billionaires.
This obsession with voting is made all the worse by corporate media's obsession with "fine distinctions." The more the media can keep us distracted by this tweedledum-tweedledee horse race, the more they (and therefore the major candidates themselves) can avoid dealing with the huge issues and solutions being purposely ignored by both major party candidates: Issues like who in fact owns and controls both houses, universal health care, full public funding of elections, seriously cutting the defense budget, decriminalizing drugs, returning to labor their rights to organize, and the frightening concentration of media ownership itself.
Why else did they both make sure Ralph Nader was kept out of the debates? The tragedy of all this is that this cult of voting and fine distinctions (and often "personality" as well) takes the energy of ordinary citizens, which, combined, can be a powerful force, and depletes it in the spectator sport of voting.
Today, sadly, our most cherished moment of democratic citizenship comes when we leave the house once in four years to choose between two mediocre Anglo-Saxon males who have been trundled out by big corporate and billionaire-run political caucuses, million-dollar primaries and managed conventions for the rigged presidential debate and multiple choice test we call a "democratic" election.
Presidents come and go, but the 200 top corporations keep increasing their almost complete control over our elections and the two major parties' candidates (with big corporations and billionaires funding 90 percent to 98 percent of both parties' budgets), over our work lives by weakening labor's rights, over our health care rights (43 million uninsured now compared to 32 million when Clinton took office), over our airwaves, and over our legal and court system, even determining how easily any of us can be sent to prison for victimless "crimes."
To further prove greed knows no boundaries, they now want to take over public education and social security. No president in this century has stopped the trend. Not even Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Only when mass movements have galvanized the country have presidents made important reforms, as when strikes and turmoil throughout the nation in the 1930s pushed FDR into his New Deal measures. Sure, Roosevelt was a sensitive man. But it took mass protests to sharpen that sensitivity and make it take action. Then and only then did he take huge steps to help the poor, establish the minimum wage and create Social Security (which had been the Socialist Party's most popular demand).
But that didn't change the basic nature of an unfettered capitalist system, whose highest priority has always been profits and power and to heck with the rest.
Voting Day 2000 has again come and gone. Sure, one of the presidential candidates is better than the other. But we will go a long way from spectator democracy to real democracy when we understand that the future of this country doesn't depend, mainly, on who is our next president. It depends on whether the American citizen, fed up with the buying off of our Congress and president by the billionaires; fed up with the murderous greed of our health care system and the pharmaceutical companies; fed up with the planetary self-destructive path of our energy, auto, lumber, agribusiness and chemical companies; will organize all over the country a clamor for change even greater than the labor uprisings of the '30s or the black rebellion of the '60s and shake this country out of old paths and falsehood into new paths and the truth.
by Howard Zinn and Gary Krane
The political culture of the United States is obsessed with and dominated by voting. Every election year is accompanied by the media's and the politicians' obsession with persuading Americans that voting for one candidate or another (and only if they are Democrat or Republican, of course) is the most important act of citizenship.
We get high on voting and forget that whether presidents have been Republican or Democrat, impotent or oversexed, they have followed the same basic policies. Whether crooks or Boy Scouts, handsome or homely, agile or clumsy, they have taxed the poor; subsidized the rich; squandered the nation's commonwealth (our minerals, airwaves, water and forests); wasted our taxes on bombers, missiles, ships and other corporate welfare; ignored the decay of the cities; and done so little for poor minority kids that for every Afro-American in college, five are now in prison, and for every Latino in college, three are in prison.
Harry Truman was blunt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wily. And Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were charming. But the first three spent billions and sent armies to Asia to defend dictators and massacre more than 2 million of the people we claimed to be helping, and the latter three again spent billions of our taxes to also arm and prop up dictators and oligarchies, and to subvert democratic movements against those governments in places like Indonesia, El Salvador and Guatemala, ending in murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. John F. Kennedy was witty; Carter was "caring"; George Bush, the elder, was firm; and Reagan said he was against big government. But all expanded our federal budgets enormously by spending hundreds of billions building up grotesquely huge nuclear weapons systems (we continue building B-2 bombers at $2 billion apiece) at the expense of providing a great public education system, health care for all Americans regardless of income, jobs that pay a living wage and mass transit for all of our cities.
Despite the decimation of the former Soviet Union, Al Gore and George W. Bush both want to continue this military spending madness, which year after year consumes more than 50 percent of our discretionary federal budget (the budget that the president and Congress determine). And Bush has the gall to claim he is against big government.
Nixon was corrupt and Gerald Ford straightforward, Reagan endearing and Clinton someone who claimed to feel the pain of the poor. But all coldly cut essential benefits for the poor and gave hundreds of billions of dollars of favors instead to rich corporations and billionaires.
This obsession with voting is made all the worse by corporate media's obsession with "fine distinctions." The more the media can keep us distracted by this tweedledum-tweedledee horse race, the more they (and therefore the major candidates themselves) can avoid dealing with the huge issues and solutions being purposely ignored by both major party candidates: Issues like who in fact owns and controls both houses, universal health care, full public funding of elections, seriously cutting the defense budget, decriminalizing drugs, returning to labor their rights to organize, and the frightening concentration of media ownership itself.
Why else did they both make sure Ralph Nader was kept out of the debates? The tragedy of all this is that this cult of voting and fine distinctions (and often "personality" as well) takes the energy of ordinary citizens, which, combined, can be a powerful force, and depletes it in the spectator sport of voting.
Today, sadly, our most cherished moment of democratic citizenship comes when we leave the house once in four years to choose between two mediocre Anglo-Saxon males who have been trundled out by big corporate and billionaire-run political caucuses, million-dollar primaries and managed conventions for the rigged presidential debate and multiple choice test we call a "democratic" election.
Presidents come and go, but the 200 top corporations keep increasing their almost complete control over our elections and the two major parties' candidates (with big corporations and billionaires funding 90 percent to 98 percent of both parties' budgets), over our work lives by weakening labor's rights, over our health care rights (43 million uninsured now compared to 32 million when Clinton took office), over our airwaves, and over our legal and court system, even determining how easily any of us can be sent to prison for victimless "crimes."
To further prove greed knows no boundaries, they now want to take over public education and social security. No president in this century has stopped the trend. Not even Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Only when mass movements have galvanized the country have presidents made important reforms, as when strikes and turmoil throughout the nation in the 1930s pushed FDR into his New Deal measures. Sure, Roosevelt was a sensitive man. But it took mass protests to sharpen that sensitivity and make it take action. Then and only then did he take huge steps to help the poor, establish the minimum wage and create Social Security (which had been the Socialist Party's most popular demand).
But that didn't change the basic nature of an unfettered capitalist system, whose highest priority has always been profits and power and to heck with the rest.
Voting Day 2000 has again come and gone. Sure, one of the presidential candidates is better than the other. But we will go a long way from spectator democracy to real democracy when we understand that the future of this country doesn't depend, mainly, on who is our next president. It depends on whether the American citizen, fed up with the buying off of our Congress and president by the billionaires; fed up with the murderous greed of our health care system and the pharmaceutical companies; fed up with the planetary self-destructive path of our energy, auto, lumber, agribusiness and chemical companies; will organize all over the country a clamor for change even greater than the labor uprisings of the '30s or the black rebellion of the '60s and shake this country out of old paths and falsehood into new paths and the truth.
