Reply
Thu 9 Oct, 2003 11:25 pm
i would vote for any democrat on the ballot with the sole exception of joseph lieberman. if it came down to it i would probably vote independent. US elections are about choosing between the lesser of the 2 evils. but when it's that bad i could not vote for either without damaging my conscience.
http://www.joseph2004.org/
Joseph Lieberman. A new kind of Democrat. The Republican kind.
I THINK BUSH HAS DONE A SUPER JOB
That equals 'I think Adolf Hitler has done a super job'
I am mostly a Republican. So I would vote for Bush.
I think Lieberman would make a terrible candidate -- and probably an even worse president -- but if it came down to Lieberman versus Bush -- I would vote for Lieberman in a heart beat.
That's because you have a heart, Frank. Those who think Bush has applied Republican ideology the last four years better dust off their courses in politics; Bush is extreme right-wing, which is a whole different game than right wing. Political extremities always cause irreparable damage -- to life, morale, and common sense.
Bush has done a super job of ruining the economy, of warmongering, of spitting on the White House lawn (film courtesy of david letterman and the Late Show), of making enemies for us throughout the world, of setting in motion an environmental disaster.
Was out and about last week -- at the CommonWealth Forum, Johnny Ds and a writer's conference sponsored by the Cambridge Center for Adult Education -- and repeatedly heard that a left wing sponsored revolution is needed, now.
A Lieberman nomination would signify the Democrats have surrendered completely anything that even remotely resembles a value.
As much as I dislike Bush, and feel that his presidency is a disaster for the Country and for the World, I would almost certainly not vote for Lieberman.
When you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil.
I would vote for Bush but I don't think Lieberman would be so bad. I think Lieberman is a person who has a basic set of values. If he had not had those values he would not have put himself in the spotlight when he excoriated Bill Clinton's lies and evasions. Lieberman showed great courage when he stood on the floor of the Senate to point out Clinton's immorality.
I am very much afraid that Wolf is unaware of History.
Adolf Hitler massacred six million people in the Concentration camps- Jews, "inferior" peoples from the East, disabled people, homosexuals.
Would wolf care to be specific in his comment and actually show how Bush is compared to Adolf Hitler or is Wolf's comment to be considered a ridiculous partisan exaggeration?
Comparing anyone (even someone you strongly disagree with) to Hitler is tasteless, extreme and insults the millions who died in the Holocaust.
I join with you to condemn wolf's statement.
Italgo, invoking Clinton to rationalize support for Bush is ludicrous.
Clinton's lies (and there is no doubt he lied) resulted in personal embarrasment and a stained blue dress.
Bush's lies (and likewise there is no doubt he lied) resulted in a war that has killed hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi's.
As a direct result of Bush's lies the public entered the war being sure that WMD's were ready to be used in "45 minutes". The public was also led to believe (and many still do) that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, and that Saddam had purchased Uranium from Africa.
Furthermore most Americans believed that the US troops would be welcomed by Iraqi's with open arms leading to a quick stable government...
I was very upset when Clinton lied to me. But, Bush's lies have caused much more damage.
ebrown_p wrote:Italgo, invoking Clinton to rationalize support for Bush is ludicrous..
In another thread, where Gato managed to work in the name of Bill Clinton, I posted the following comments. I think they are appropriate here also.
Quote:If Italgato were asked for a recipe for fried chicken, he/she would manage to work in a shot at Bill Clinton.
Hey -- that is his/her prerogative.
But Bill Clinton owes more to the Italgatos of the world than he does to his supporters. The Italgatos helped elect Bill Clinton the first time -- and they damn near insured that he would be re-elected.
I'm sure Bill Clinton, if he had the chance, would give a heartfelt "thank you" to Italgato.
I think Bill Clinton was an excellent president -- so I'll do it for him.
Thanks, Italgato.
I hope you work just as hard for Hillary when she runs.
It will take a strong, competent person like Hillary to straighten out the country after the bunch of morons now in power finish screwing it up.
She'll need your help.
And I for one, know you will give it.
In fact, I will thank you in advance for it.
I guess some thanks are due, McG, also.
Thanks McG.
You too were of help.
Hope you are of help when Hillary runs.
Too hilarious! Great work Frank.
The chance of Leiberman being the democratic candidate is IMO zero. If he were I would be hard pressed to vote for him.
I must confess that I always find it difficult to vote FOR someone. Of course, we are all only human, but generally, I consider the policies candidates follow or profess to follow. Even that isn't enough.
i would not vote for Lieberman for the same reasons i did not vote for Clinton, I would prefer to have a democrat in the oval office. (although Clinton was the best Republican President of the 20th century)
dyslexia I would not vote for Lieberman either. However, If Clinton could run again I would vote for him in an instant. Who or which Democrat strikes your fancy. I would assume the one furthest to the left.
dyslexia, just out of curiosity.
For whom did you vote when you weren't voting for Clinton? I don't even remember the alternatives
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace