Chui,
BUT DON'T THINK I'M PICKING ON YOU, JWARREN
Not at all. I admire your passion and conviction over this subject, and share many of your views. I'll try to address a few of your comments in that light.
Had we been an educated populace Ross Perot could have been president. We would not be facing losing manufacturing and engineering jobs;a non-existent border and a decaying currency. However, Ross Perot was for financially supporting Russia and for gun control.
Perot said a lot of things that I liked, and a lot I didn't. He was his own brand of candidate that had to be evaluated seperately. As you have said, he WAS for gun control, which is a deal-killer for me suggesting that he would not have been an option for me on his own merit.
While I understand what you are getting at, Perot's run for the oval office was in 1992 where many consider him an instrumental figure in splitting the Republican vote and allowing Bill Clinton to defeat George Bush, Sr. We see how that worked out. In 1996, and 2000, people remembered that, and further dissuaded people from veering from the primary political parties.
Had we a truly learned populace Ron Paul could have been president now... When the people are ready the candidates will appear - not the other way around. WE DO IT - NOT THE CANDIDATE(S)! BTW, what is so darned sancrosanct with a "two-party" system? Thomas Jefferson warned us about "party systems"...
Run-of-the-mill politics don't run as simply as you stated here. Ron Paul would most likely be a very good president. The reality is, however, that he HAS NOT gotten his message to the people. He has not raised the money it SADLY takes to make a run at the oval office. Offhand, I would say that Paul would be a great statesman, and is a very poor politician. He has done little that routinely gets his name in the news or his face on TV. He has done little to gain free exposure. It takes that to get very far in politics.
As to the two party system, there is nothing sancrosanct about it. It is just the functional reality we operate under. I frankly don't like it, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that it exists for all practical purposes at the moment.
If by your own admission that he does not represent Republican [form of gov't ideals] how in God's name could you cast your vote for him? You voted for Evil to lead your nation so you cannot but be to blame for this mess and you cannot feign surprise at any of the Evil perpetrated on this nation.
Whoa here...let's talk about this. I don't actually believe Bush is an EVIL person. I do, however, think he is an ill-advised person and one that has failed to see or understand the dangerous precidents he has set.
I, like others, believed that Bush would turn our to be a "decent" President-- one that may not be stellar, but in no way would be a threat to us. We were CONVINCED that Gore and/or Kerry would be a terrible president and WOULD be a threat to us. Recognizing the example of Perot's split of the Republican vote in 1992, people felt they HAD to hold the party line to provide a good defense against Gore and/or Kerry. Our reward would be the defeat of Gore/Kerry and having a benign, if unspectacular president.
Considering the narrow margins of both of those elections, it is proved that our assessment was correct in needing to hold a pary line to defeat Gore/Kerry. No one could have predicted what could have come post-9/11.
And you're okay with this?? Do you suppose we'll ever return to our Constitution and Bill of Rights with this lame approach? Will we ever get Godly laws with such propagation of Evil? I think not.
Hardly "OK" with it. But I also have so few illusions that I do see how things are working. The reality is, currently, that voting third party gives more advantages to the person you are VOTING against than it benefits the third party candidate that you vote FOR. The reality is that for MANY past elections, the candidates have been so diametrically polarized that it FORCES one to vote AGAINST one candidate as strongly -- or more strongly-- than for another. I don't make up the game, but only a fool would fail to recognize what is going on.
I agree with your assessement that we won't return to the Bill of Rights or Constitution from this approach. That would not happen without a radical solution, in my opinion. I'll not elaborate on that point on a public forum lest the "black helicopters" decide to pay a visit.
YOU MUST AGREE HERE; BY ADMITTEDLY CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS YOUR PATH IS STILL EVIL. This, sir, is NOT what was destined for this nation!!
I believe we will disagree on this point on a couple levels. First, as I have pointed out, people felt that they were voting FOR a benign if not spectacular canditate and voting AGAINST a REAL threat. Most of us do not have the gift of 20/20 Foresight that you seem to possess.
Second, what makes the US more "destined" than any other "great" country? Many nations have grown powerful, then grown complacent, and then died. It is the nature of nations, it seems. I don't know where the US will head, or how long it will take, but I do believe that we are already seeing evidence of the turning point towards decay that has been so frequently witnessed in other great nations and empires.
WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE DESTROYED THIS NATION BY THINKING JUST THE WAY OUR GOV'T AGENTS HAVE "PROGRAMMMED" OR CONDITIONED US TO THINK - WHICH IS REFLECTED IN YOUR RESPONSE.
Some are "programmed," but the blame lies in media more than it lies with the Government "agents." Like us, our opponents have a "vision" of America that doesn't include our ideologies. Creeping incrementalism has sprung to life from this vision. Small compromises has piled upon one another to create a behemoth.
WE WILL LOSE THIS NATION IF WE CONTIUE TO DO AS WE HAVE. DO YOU NOT THINK IT'S TIME FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE??? I'M SURE YOU DO. NOW WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH THAT DESIRE???
I do feel that it is time for constructive change. I am not certian, however, that this change will occur through the political arena. There is a lack of equal representation of views through the media, and voices of dissatisfaction with the status-quo are limited. Too much of our nation are comfortable with their life, value security over freedom, and somehow believe the USA is insulated from the chaos of the rest of the world. In a desire to protect thier career path, the house in the suburbs, and the volvo, they are willing to sell essentially everything our forefathers bled and died for.
These are the "values" that are constantly given a platform in the public area. These are the "values" I continually hear from the general population. If this is the American ideal, I'd say we've already lost the nation. We are just getting good seats for round two.
John
