On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:57:43 -0500, Mike Smith
acm.DOT.org> wrote:

OK, fair's fair. But, on a serious note - Tony's point about us
having to pick the lesser of 2 evils is a real life scenario. Why
does it have to be that way? Because it always has been that way?
Because of our indoctrination? Because we're too sheepy to try it any
other way?

I made a mistake voting for Bush against Gore because I thought that
Gore was an overbearing assmunch with an attitude that sucked,
especially during the debates. Anyone that can't give the other party
"clear" time on air, without clearing the throat, grumbling and
poo-pah-ing in the microphone has a problem.

That said, however, Gore has won over some of my vote with his actions
on Global Warming, whether anyone believes him or not. It's quite
obvious that the U.S. and China are the biggest culprits in destroying
the atmosphere and ozone. I happen to live in an area where acid rain
is a big problem - raised up by the industrial machine in the
north-midwest. The 2nd largest state park in the country, next to
Alaska. Had he availed himself of the same tenor and manner, I may
have voted for him back then. Temper tantrums aren't the stuff of
presidents.

Bush was definitely on the ropes during that election and fumbled
quite a bit. Since then, we all have seen that he has fumbled quite a
bit more than that. No need to rehash the dub-ya situation, we're all
living in / with it.

The only time it seems that both parties, houses, right-left bullshit
sports teams get together is during a war footing. I'm waiting for
Topps to issue a Congressional set of baseball type cards in the
future. Priceless - couldn't even give them away.

I voted for Perot against Clinton because during an info-mercial
showing. He made me laugh soo damn hard about Voodoo Economics. That
took balls... and it was, of course, before Monica. Looking back on
the economics, Clinton and team seemed to pull us out of the Voodoo
era of Reagan / Bush. I can appreciate that. If only he had stated
that he DID have sex with Lewinsky - that left me with ideas that he
may be holding back on us in plenty of other ways. Even the
appearance of impropriety can ruin a political position (no pun). Can
you say Osama? I knew you could.

The Bushman was sold a bill of goods, which in turn were sold to us
wholesale. Who the hell are we to think we can't be attacked? I
think those days are over and were over long before it happened.
Nobody took it that seriously. I can understand Bush's position,
considering he was caught reading a child's book upside down for all
the cameras to see. Says it all...

I'd rather not see Hilarious in office, but do not have a problem with
a woman holding the office (as long as it's not the orifice). Too
much dirty laundry to air out, or so it seems. Further, An
AR-KAN-SASS senator in NY? Nor do I have a problem with anyone of
"different" color / ethnic background, because that's all bullshit
anyway - to keep that segment of the population under wraps.

I'll have to vote on the lesser of all evils because nobody will be
polling me about who should, could or would be in office. If there's
a SERIOUS way to introduce change without violence, I may there with a
helping hand. Other than that, I'm 2/3 through my life
(statistically) and I'll leave that to the X,Y,Z and zero chromosome
generations to make their own pathway to hell... or wherever they
desire to be.

Fair enough? :^)