> It also flies in the face of the fact that Clinton never had a > Democrat controlled Congress.
My recollection is that Clinton did for 2 years. I remember being stumped that the Dems still couldn't seem to get stuff done. Yet, however ineffective, the Dems are still a whole lot better than the current czar who calls himself our President and who works constantly to increase the divide between the obnoxiously rich and everyone else (probably even you Magill) and turn over all of our freedoms and rights to Corporate America.
vote on, Mr. Rogers
William H. Magill wrote:
On 25 Oct, 2004, at 13:47, Brian Siano wrote:
William H. Magill wrote:
One is forced to wonder what a post-victory Kerry Administration will be like?
That's easy, Bill. The Kerry Administration will be a massive, colossal failure. This wouldn't be Kerry's fault. Not only does he have to fix the damage caused by the Bush administration (colossal debt, a war with no foreseeable end, loss of interational support, a flailing economy), he'll have to do it while facing a legislative and judicial branch dominated by the Republicans.
By that logic then, there is absolutely no reason to vote for Kerry, or for anybody.
Better to stay home or vote for Nader or Badnarik than to participate in a charade.
It also flies in the face of the fact that Clinton never had a Democrat controlled Congress.
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
