You work within the Democratic Party to exert whatever influence you can. You donate to candidates that more reflect your idea of what the Democratic Party stands for. You help them to get elected. You get active in the party, a political party with an actual shot at winning a House seat, or the Senate, or in the Lege, your city council. Look, I understand why people support 3rd party candidates. It can get very frustrating. I can't stand Reid in the Senate, for example, and wouldn't have picked Pelosi in a million years, but they are still better than the people they replaced. It's something. From my perspective, it just makes more sense to vote Democratic and get a more progressive agenda a chance. The country, in many ways, has taken a huge step backwards over the last several years. When Ronald Reagan, a guy I never voted for, starts to look like a moderate, you know something's been seriously wrong. You can't affect change overnight on the scale needed. You just have to chip away at the bull**** and try and make a difference. D&D. Replicant Voter.
Oh oh oh oh i don't know, i don't know, oh, where to begin we are north americans and for those of you who still think we're from england we're not, no. we build our planes and our trains till we think we might die, far from North America, where the buildings are old and you might have lots of mimes. aha, oh, oh. i hate the feelin' when you're looking at me that way cause we're north americans but if we act all shy, it’ll make it ok makes it go away. oh I don't know, I don't know, oh, where to begin when we're north american but in the end we make the same mistakes all over again come on north americans we are north american scum we’re from north america and all the kids all the kids that want to make the scene here in north america when our young kids get to read it in your magazines we don't have those so where's the love where's the love where's the love where's the love where's the love tonight? but there's no love man there's no love and the kids are uptight so throw a party till the cops come in and bust it up let's go north americans oh you were planning it i didn't mean to interrupt sorry i did it once and my parents got pretty upset freaked out in north america but then i said the more i do it the better it gets let's rock north america we are north american scum we're from north america we are north american scum we are north american new york's the greatest if you get someone to pay the rent wahoo north america and it's the furthest you can live from the government un huh huh some proud american christians might disagree here in north america but new york's the only place we're keepin them off the street boo boo now we can't have parties like in spain where they go all night shut down in north america or like berlin where they go another night, alright, un huh un huh you see i love this place that i have grown to know alright, north america. and yeah, I know you wouldn’t touch us with a ten-foot pole ‘cause we’re north americans. we are north american scum we are north americans we are north american scum we love north america take me back to the states man north american scum where we can be ???? north american where the dj ???? here in north american scum don't blame the canadians let go north america
i dont disagree w/ your ideals. i just feel that because one party is the lesser of two evils and we only have two options doesnt mean i should give them any support. both sides are controlled by the same interests. both sides are pushing a globalist agenda. clinton had nafta - bush has the north american union. the democrats (and bush) are pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants, which imo makes them guilty of treason. the disagreements among our leaders lie in the social issues, which both parties use more as wedge issues than anything. bush has put lady liberty's head on the chopping block, but a hillary clinton presidency will be the death blow of america. imo, it seems that your constant attempts to dismiss ron paul show that you see his campiagn as a threat. if i was a democrat i would too - paul is the only candidate who has the ability to draw up independents and fence sitters on both sides. there is alot of disillusionment right now. most people in this country are fed up with both parties. the democratic congress has approval ratings as low as bush! the people have woken up and all they need is a good kick in the pants to start pushing for real change. if everyone went around with attitudes like "hey, there is no point in trying to establish a 3rd party" or "ron paul has no chance" then they will have no chance. it becomes a self-fufilling prophecy, if you will. like kenny loggins says, "keep the fire"
Sorry to disappoint you, but I've been dismissing Ron Paul for a long time, since at least his Libertarian run in 1988. Ron got 0.5% Yes, I'm quacking in my boots! Kenny had a brief stint with a groovy band from the late '60's, the Electric Prunes, after most of the Prunes had left the band. I really liked Loggins and Messina. I'm not sure what Loggins is doing now. D&D. Replicant Voter.
I'm a Democrat, though I am disappointed, frustrated and infuriated with the party and its members more often than not. I also dismiss Ron Paul as a viable candidate. I do not see his campaign as a threat. In fact, he's one of the only Republicans I could consider voting for, largely because he's actually a Libertarian and I agree with a great lot of that platform. I also think you're very wrong that Paul is the only candidate with the ability to draw independents or fence sitters. Giuliani has that ability by virtue of his liberal positions on social issues. McCain used to have it and could get it back due to his (used to be) independent streak and his pro-immigration stance. Fred Thompson has it due to his celebrity and general likeability. And Hagel, if he got in, would enjoy some crossover support too due to his strong opposition to the failed war in Iraq. On the other side, Obama has that ability (as demonstrated in polls like the latest Gallup one that show him even with Clinton by virtue of exceptionally strong support among independents), Hillary has it as she has been a hawk and will draw a larger number of R women than any male D would. Even Richardson has crossover appeal for a number of reasons including his Latino background, his Western roots and his resume. Paul is unique, but not because of his ability to draw independents. The polls aren't entirely reliable, but they aren't meaningless either. And he's at the bottom of them. I'm not saying he couldn't catch fire (I hope he does). I'm just saying he hasn't. As a result there's not one serious person in the world that views him as any more of a threat to the R's, the D's or any other sort of establishment than Lyndon LaRouche.
I agree, our government is really, really broken. America is an empire and the Republicans and Democrats are both in the business of running that empire. Deckard is disillusioned if he thinks the Democrats are going to save this country. Although he is right that the Republicans are ruining the country.
Only a un-brainwashed electorate could fight the dem/rep conglomerate We have listened to the two parties for so long, been brainwashed in school, watched countless hours of cnn, fox, and the rest of the poluted news that we couldn't recognize the basic principle at work if it was clearly explained, (which I cannot do)... democrats(thesis) + republicans(antithesis)= Globalism / tyranny (synthesis) The end game here is a globalized, un-nationalized tyranny. If Ron Paul WAS the republican party candidate something would be terribly wrong and I would have to talk to him personally to find out how that happened. He would only become the candidate if those in control decided that. Which isn't going to happen. If he were to win as an independent it would probably result in blood in the streets of America. The bankers for one wouldn't stand for it. Ron Paul is running to try to get his ideas in front of the people (although he is actually trying to win- he is an idealist and still believes in the people more than I do) Ron Paul has received many serious death threats, continues to walk a fine line and is probably alive because he is not perceived as any real threat. That is what his son told me anyways.
Choosing the lesser of two evils, when there is such a huge chasm between the two parties on so much, is easy, or should be, if people put their thinking caps on. Who would you rather have handling the environmental issues and global warming? A political party who has a large chunk of it's members strongly in support of action, members, as well as independents, who have to be appeased, whether you have political backers that want policies that aren't beneficial, or not? Or a political party that doesn't have a large group committed to those issues, and has a far, far worse record on the environment, global warming, and a list of other issues too numerous to mention. Just put aside who would be nominating and approving lifetime Federal judgeships, clearly the best reason to vote Democratic. It's not a hard choice at all. Unless you like having that sand in your ears. D&D. Replicant Voter.
BTW- I talked to Ron Paul's wife a few weeks ago, he is really booked up and busy right now, I am trying to get a meeting with him to ask him some of the questions being asked about his views. If anyone cares, I am still trying.
When the party is over and you feel like a slave and your grand children ask you what the world was like before your life was totally controlled by a global union and you had the freedom to make independent choices about your own life, you were able to own property and you had freedoms, like speech, religion and redress and greviences... You will tell them that we are working on global warming, the war on drugs and over population... they will not want to hear about the sand we ALL had in our ears.
Go talk to Ron, rhester, and I'll listen. I won't have any of that sand cloggin' the works. D&D. Replicant Voter.
I'm not saying the Democrats may not be the lesser of two evils, but don't act like they are without sin. Their latest free check to Bush's war is a prime example. The Democrats are all talk, but just as lustful for power as the Republicans. They simply throw out catchy promises to the left, just like the Republicans throw out their hatemongering to rally the right. In the end, no matter which one is in control, it is the bankers, corporations and special interests with money who are in control. So I can't say I get real excited about the prospect of either political party these days. I want a third choice, "none of the above". If that comes with a free sample of sand, so be it.
I think I've gone out of my way to say they/we have flaws. Pointing out why someone should consider voting for the Democratic Party, warts and all, is not unreasonable. Thinking a 3rd party has a chance at more than the local level is, in my opinion. D&D. Replicant Voter.
In reality off of the D&D I have voted republican simply over the abortion issue, I can't in good conscience vote for the republicans anymore. I like democrats who are honest, and support eliminating govt. debt. I don't know of any who are really about eliminating the debt. Nor do I know any republicans that see that as an issue. At this point I believe both parties will do whatever rich bankers want them to do- borrow money Issues I am concerned with are- 1. govt. debt / central bank 2. constitutional freedoms/ privacy/ ownership 3. Abortion 4. Globalism 5. Iraq- (get us out) 6. UN 7. govt. waste 8. health care 9. education 10. environment But until we stop the debt-insanity and we are enslaved by the central bank the rest don't really matter. They have us by the throat.
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace September 27, 2000 Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion. "Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion." Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone. This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States." "Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said. In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years. "The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said. The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations. "I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said. "These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said. Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus." That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said. Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston. "This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs." It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official. The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ rhester, Democrats have done more for fiscal discipline during the Clinton Administration, by far, then the GOP has in several decades. Bush has been on a spending binge since taking office, handing out tax cuts like candy to his corporate and wealthy supporters, while producing record increases in the size of government, the size of the budget deficit, the size of the trade deficit, the size of the national debt, without vetoing a SINGLE spending increase his entire time in office. I know that you know that, but it doesn't prevent you, and others, from lumping the Democratic Party with the GOP. On the issue of fairness, I'd say something is lacking from the critics. D&D. Replicant Voter,
I still maintain that had he been able to keep his crazy in check just a little longer, Ross Perot could've won in 1992. On the topic at hand, now that I've become a big Hollywood Big Shot, joined a union (the WGAw) and begun hanging out with all sorts of Hollywood types, I guess I'll have to switch the Democratic Party, too.
