In a message dated 11/3/00 7:42:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Nader can't win but Gore can lose.>>>
Should we outlaw 3rd parties so as not to disturb the monopoly??
<<<The Supreme Court will have 3-4 vacancies in the next four years. Choice
is at stake, as are many civil liberties.>>>
All kinds of "choice" is at stake. The choice for poor people to send their
children to private schools. The choice to associate with whoever you want.
To hire who you want. Tho Vote for who you want. To choose which doctor you
can go to. To choose when you can have elective surgery. To choose to keep
more of the money you earn as opposed to having it absconded by the
government. The choice to leave your decades old farm or small business to
your children. The choice of which laws of ethics or morals your children are
exposed to. I could go on but the bottom line is liberal judges like Clinton
appointees want to take away all the other choices leaving only the choice
for ONE parent to decide whether to keep a child or not. As for civil,
liberties ask Elian Gonzalez who is now in a brainwashing school (not with
his loving father) getting drugs with his cookies and milk. Im not so hot for
more secret deals purposefully kept from Congressional oversight.
<<<The environment. Gore has always been there. Bush has never been
there.>>>
Right now Al Gore has a zinc mine poluting the river in his own property. A
toxic dump on another piece of property he owns has been left alone by the
Clinton EPA. He has adamantly refused to have closed a toxic smelter in Ohio
(I believe) simply because he thinks it will hurt his donor base. He has
supported Occidental petroleums ransacking the sacred land of South American
Indians. His book on the environment is filled with junk science. HE, no one
else, is responsible for $2.50 cent per gallon fuel and if he wins fule will
cost $6,87 like it does in Europe. AND your electric bill will be $400 a
month. Thats an environmentally sensetive President ?
<<<The economy. Back to tax breaks for the rich and the huge deficits of
the Reagan/Bush years or continue the stable growing economy of the past
eight years?>>>
The economy has been steadily growing ever since Reagan convinced a
Democratic majority in the House and Senate to cut tax rates in 1982. The
economy languished until the republicans took over congress in 1994 and undid
the Democrats legislated recession of 1989-90. You want continued growth,
vote Bush and the Republicans. Gores bogus energy policies (which are solely
responsible for higher fuel costs) have begun to stop the economic growth
cycle. get the government out of the way just like Reagan did in 1981.
<<<Back in 1980 the NY Senate race was Elizabeth Holtzman vs Al D'Amato.
Except Jacob Javits, who lost the GOP primary, was still the nominee of
the Liberal Party of NY and stayed in the race for whatever reasons of
vanity. He drained off enough votes from Holtzman and we stuck with
D'Amato as a US Senator, voting for Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia,
etc.>>>
Al Gore voted for (I repeat FOR) Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. So there
goes that theory.
<<<In 1992, Geraldine Ferraro was favored to knock off D'Amato in the fall
election, but in a split primary, Ferraro lost because - guess who -
Elizabeth Holtzman persisted in staying in the primary race for
whatever reasons she had, splitting the vote for a woman nominee and
giving the nomination to a weaker (male) Democrat who lost to D'Amato.>>>
Its a good thing this happened otherwise Ferraros mafia linked husband would
have had all kinds of freebies as all of Clintons Arkansas-mafia related
insiders eventually got. So insider pillaging was postponed for four years.
That was a good thing not a bad thing. Except for ferraros husbands mafia
frieds.
<<<So I am not at all fond of third party candidates who can cost us all
because they stay in.>>>
We need MORE political parties not less.
<<<What does Nader want? Matching funds for the next presidential
election? I am sorry Ralph, but the US Supreme Court and the decisions
it makes in the next four years is a hell of a lot more important to me
than whether you can get matching funds in the next election.>>>
Congress will temper any Supreme Court nominee. people forget that ONLY
Clinton disregards courts and Congressional oversight. So this is a red
herring if there ever was one. Sandra day Occonnor and Souter were Reagan
Nominees. Some threat.
<<>>
Campaign finance "reform". what a joke. You have just seen the single
greatest violation of any and all campaign finance laws by selling the
lincoln bedroom for $250,000 a night, $150,000 fleecing for seats on trips on
trade missions anmd weekends at Camp david and rides on Air Force One.,
Hillary using the whitehouse and $100,000 weekend guest visits for Senate
Campaign donor events, 125 million dollars of taxpayer money to send 2500
Democrat donors on Presidential "missions" overseas over the last eight
years. Eggregious violations of existing laws in using 1 millio dollars of
taxpayer funds just to produce the databas eHillary is now using for her
senate campaign fundraising. Believe it or not there are actually laws
against this and to violate one is a felony BUT Bill and Hill chose to
ignore, and Janet Stonewall Reno didnt prosecute. "Reform" today is to outlaw
corporate gifts and leave labor unions free to donate as much as they want. A
true canard. A laughable concept.
<<<Is the system corrupt? Yes.>>>
See above
<<<Can it be changed if Bush is president and Nader gets matching funds for
the next election? No. Can it be changed if Gore is president? Maybe. So
vote for the chance we have to make some change.>>>
Why would Gore change something that hampers HIS finace related activities.
It seems clear that we would continue to have all of the above continue
unabated. So a vote for Gore is a vote to perpetuate rampant violation of the
EXISTING campaign finance laws while at the same time allowing massive
violation of laws that Gore doenst believe apply to him. throw in a lapdog
press that defends and covers up such activities as opposed to a "vigilant"
press which hounds republicans on 24 year old events and ask yourself which
choice actually brings real change. Bush will bring real change from the last
eight years of "no controlling legal authority".
Stop the lies, stop the cover-ups. tell Al and Hill to get real jobs or find
another universe to rule. And do it with their OWN money as opposed to the
taxpayers.
Bush for President.
