Challenge to political forum participants.

[Guest]

How about in the remaining days of the run for President, we do a better job of discussion than the candidates. My challenge is for all to support their candidate on their respective merits or lack thereof (if applicable).

No opponent bashing to defend or promote the candidate of your choice.
No school yard....teeter totter responses.....just defend your candidate based on their positions, abilities, promises, etc.

I would bet much more time is spent on what ever the subject tends to be VS the pages of tit for tat, time wasting......leave that for the candidates.

Or, any other alternative that does not employ bashing, name calling, slurring, slamming, degrading commentary.

Talk about CHANGE!

BTK

[Guest]

How about in the remaining days of the run for President, we do a better job of discussion than the candidates. My challenge is for all to support their candidate on their respective merits or lack thereof (if applicable).

No opponent bashing to defend or promote the candidate of your choice.
No school yard....teeter totter responses.....just defend your candidate based on their positions, abilities, promises, etc.

I would bet much more time is spent on what ever the subject tends to be VS the pages of tit for tat, time wasting......leave that for the candidates.

Or, any other alternative that does not employ bashing, name calling, slurring, slamming, degrading commentary.

Talk about CHANGE!

BTK

I support the Republican philosophy as apposed to the Democratic philosophy on many levels, but the base of my belief is that the Democratic party believes that they know better how our lives should run, better than we do. They have tried (and have in many cases, like welfare) to take away personal responsibility and decide that they, not we, know better what needs to be done.

[Guest]

How about in the remaining days of the run for President, we do a better job of discussion than the candidates. My challenge is for all to support their candidate on their respective merits or lack thereof (if applicable).

No opponent bashing to defend or promote the candidate of your choice.
No school yard....teeter totter responses.....just defend your candidate based on their positions, abilities, promises, etc.

I would bet much more time is spent on what ever the subject tends to be VS the pages of tit for tat, time wasting......leave that for the candidates.

Or, any other alternative that does not employ bashing, name calling, slurring, slamming, degrading commentary.

Talk about CHANGE!

BTK

That would be very nice BTK, unfortunately your candidate McCain has taken out his Karl Rove smear book (the one that did him in in 2000) and has decided that this is his only way to win. That said, he's forced Obama to respond in kind. This next 30 days, McCain has stated he will attack on character because he thinks that's the only way he can win. How sad is that?

[Guest]

How about in the remaining days of the run for President, we do a better job of discussion than the candidates. My challenge is for all to support their candidate on their respective merits or lack thereof (if applicable).

No opponent bashing to defend or promote the candidate of your choice.
No school yard....teeter totter responses.....just defend your candidate based on their positions, abilities, promises, etc.

I would bet much more time is spent on what ever the subject tends to be VS the pages of tit for tat, time wasting......leave that for the candidates.

Or, any other alternative that does not employ bashing, name calling, slurring, slamming, degrading commentary.

Talk about CHANGE!

BTK


Before I respond, just a note that your appeal lasted until 10:52...almost an hour :)

I support Sen McCain for a number of reasons...first of all, he and his record are transparent in that I can check his voting and he has been in public life for so many years I know what I am "getting". Having said that, there are many issues that I disagree with him on...the recent bail out for starters, however the contrast between the two candidates is stark and real. Sen Obama has been running for office most of his adult life and thus I have difficulty in knowing what he is all about. If I check his background and training, in lieu of a track record, I see radicalism and socialism. He may not be that but that is ALL his past and training is about and I dont feel comfortable in taking a chance with the White House.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell....it is a shame when you vote on the "lesser of two evils" but that I will do.

[Guest]

to the challenge without reference to who did what most recently....

My opening remarks:

Challenge to political forum participants.
How about in the remaining days of the run for President, we do a better job of discussion than the candidates. My challenge is for all to support their candidate on their respective merits or lack thereof (if applicable).

Talk about CHANGE!

Somebody telling me what either candidate said or did yesterday as justification for one's position today does little or nothing for me.
I am still looking forward to any post that can make or support it's response without using what the candidates are saying, doing to each other.....using YOUR candidates merits to support one's position. I just don't know why that is so difficult. For starters it means not using the cannon fodder rhetoric of the media or each participants spin and dirt doctors.

By the way, I am pretty sure that at no time since I have been posting on this forum did I ever say John McCain was my man. How about another hypososis: what if a person was a Democrat and concluded they were not for Obama....because they don't like him, where he came from, what he said/says, etc....and on this forum asks why others accept what he has to offer, no questions asked...does it follow the person must be for the opposition?

Judging by the initial responses to the challenge....I accept it is for naught.
Must just be too difficult an assignment!! Kinda disappointing.....but I'll get over it in time.......(OK I am over it):)

BTK

[Guest]

It's fascinating to me that most who stand up for McCain say they never said they were for McCain. I'm not being sarcastic. I just find that very interesting. hmmmm....

[Guest]

to the challenge without reference to who did what most recently....

My opening remarks:

Challenge to political forum participants.
How about in the remaining days of the run for President, we do a better job of discussion than the candidates. My challenge is for all to support their candidate on their respective merits or lack thereof (if applicable).

Talk about CHANGE!

Somebody telling me what either candidate said or did yesterday as justification for one's position today does little or nothing for me.
I am still looking forward to any post that can make or support it's response without using what the candidates are saying, doing to each other.....using YOUR candidates merits to support one's position. I just don't know why that is so difficult. For starters it means not using the cannon fodder rhetoric of the media or each participants spin and dirt doctors.

By the way, I am pretty sure that at no time since I have been posting on this forum did I ever say John McCain was my man. How about another hypososis: what if a person was a Democrat and concluded they were not for Obama....because they don't like him, where he came from, what he said/says, etc....and on this forum asks why others accept what he has to offer, no questions asked...does it follow the person must be for the opposition?

Judging by the initial responses to the challenge....I accept it is for naught.
Must just be too difficult an assignment!! Kinda disappointing.....but I'll get over it in time.......(OK I am over it):)

BTK



Ok..let me see if I get it right this time !!! CHANGE...I think that no matter who wins the Presidency there will be change. With a congess that is basically inept, I am not sure how much a Republican can get done, but am sure with a Democratic President the "skids will be greased". I, personally, am just opposed to that kind of change OR for change JUST for change !

[Guest]

BTK...I think you had a wonderful idea. Just because our nominees for President don't do it and sling insults and fabricate stories...doesn't mean we have to....

Honestly...I am voting the party ticket. I agree with Bucco, just that my lesser of two evils is Democrat...

I know that I have certain beliefs and with the Democrat party I have a better chance then with the Republicans at keeping or changing (depending on the need) things the way I think they should be....I will vote Democrat.

[Guest]

My personal belief is that neither of these candidates is remotely qualified to be president during the troubling times ahead. I think the current financial crisis will be solved and not have a multi year impact going forward. However the current energy crisis will be the thing that devastates this country and will last for the next 10 to 15 years after our leadership takes action. And so far all we have is no action. Without adequate energy we will face shortages of just about every commodity we need to survive. Food, heating supplies, even just fuel to get to the ER should you need it. And neither candidate has an energy plan the addresses the real issues. We need to do everything possible to get more energy. Drill now every where there is known supplies, wind, nuclear and lots of it, solar, tides, everything possible. On another thread there is a video about a military unit assigned domestically. Wait until you can't get food because it is rotting on trucks without fuel and you will see riots in this country.

I personally do want to see the US move more toward socialism because we will move to far and probably become a Marxist nation, however the coming energy crisis will move us in that direction. So I will probably vote for McCain only because he will be less likely to go in that direction than Obama and McCain may take action a little sooner on energy. And I base that solely on the no action taken by the Polsi lead congress. Allowing off shore leasing 50 miles out where there is little to no oil while foreign countries are allowed to drill much closer to our shores is just insane. However I do not like either candidate as neither one has the leadership qualities we need in the next decade.

[Guest]

regarding those who stand up for or support McCain (or what ever your words) may in fact apply to some on this forum.
Your remarks regarding my support for or standing up for McCain are off the mark.
I don't fit the convenient facilitating general category , if not for Obama one must be wrong or for the other candidate.
There are just too many of us who are completely dissatisfied with the candidates (PLURAL!) being offered.

My suggestion for a change in how this forum could defend candidates of choice is/was a complete waste of time. I must have had a senior moment to think there could be anything more than just the usual party parroting rhetoric.

I guess I will go to a more productive forum in the Just Fun section.

BTK

[Guest]

Don't give up, Billie. There still may be a few who are willing to discuss their voting intentions and their reasons without resorting to bashing the other candidate or other participants in the Political Forum. If that proves incorrect, I too will use my time more productively and enjoyably. In past days I've been drawn into posting responses that are unproductive and I promise that won't happen again. So here we go...

Unless something changes a lot in the next month, I will very likely vote for Barack Obama.

Until the last Presidential election, I voted each and every time for the Republican candidate. (What's that eleven straight times before my first vote for a Democrat?) After voting for George Bush for his first term, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 because Bush performed--or failed to perform--significantly differently from the promises he made in his campaign for election in 2000. It became very apparent very soon after his inaguration that he consistently embraced only a few narrow issues of the far right wing ideaology--tax cutting and planting democracies. He did not embrace conservative principles such as smaller government and less government spending. Nor did he make much of an effort to meaningfully address some of the important problems facing the U.S.--an energy policy, healthcare, education. Through his Vice President and many of his appointees the Bush administration proved to be as devious and deceitful as it was ineffective. Almost more importantly, Bush embraced and even fueled the partisan polarization and increasing devisivness of our government.

I like John McCain very much. I would almost certainly vote for him except for three reasons...

-- He has "hired" and embraced the same political operatives that worked to elect George Bush and is employing the same purely negative approach to seeking election. I am offended by his avoidance of running the "high road " campaign that he promised at the outset of the primaries. I am turned off by the advice his campaign seems to be giving him--and he is accepting--to avoid discussion of the real issues and problems facing the country in favor of negative sniping and attempts at character assination. John McCain seems to have reversed his own "willing to lose the election but win the war" analogy, already failing to fulfill his promises even before his election the same way Bush did. I cannot vote for a repeat of that sort of an administration.

-- McCain's campaign handlers have used his reputation as a "maverick" heavily in his campaign, even in the selection of his VP candidate. That may seem a popular personality trait, but unfortunately his actions as a maverick have weakened his ability to bring together the fractured and polarized Congress. He seems almost equally disliked by the Democrats as well as many in his own party. I believe that a President capable of bringing the two parties together from the fringes towards the middle is more important now than at any time in decades. Barack Obama has the demeanor to do that and I feel more comfortable that he could be more effective in bringing our government together than the "maverick" McCain. There's a risk that Obama could become a Bush-like idealogue, but so far he's stated no intent of trying to move the country from a far right wing direction quickly to the left. In fact, many of the campaign promises of both candidates are eerily similar. Admittedly, he has a liberal Senate voting record and that is a concern. But I hope I'm right.

-- Lastly, with what is likely to be a heavily Democratic House and Senate, a Congress which is polarized to the far left and right, it is unlikely that McCain can or will accomplish much of anything legislatively in his first and probably only term in office. If he were elected I anticipate another four years of sniping and posturing and arguing with little being accomplished, even in the face of serious national problems and issues. That would be particularly true if McCain involved those who are running his election campaign in his administration, which would be likely. If Obama is elected he will be likely be able to get may things he feels are important addressed with legislation passed by his majority control of both houses of Congress. The risk in his election is that he will embrace an ideaology as far to the left as Bush was to the right with equally disastrous results. In the worst case scenario we'd be voting for another new President in 2012, like we probably would be anyway when a then 76-year old McCain would be unlikely to run for re-election. We could always vote out Obama if he proved dangerously and irresponsibly liberal and "start all over again". I hope that doesn't happen because I don't believe that the U.S. can afford yet another four years of ineffective and irresponsible governance.

So, you can see that my choice is a "lesser of two evils" choice. I suspect I may not be alone in favoring a "less undesirable" candidate and the frustrations that decision has caused me.

[Guest]

My personal belief is that neither of these candidates is remotely qualified to be president during the troubling times ahead. I think the current financial crisis will be solved and not have a multi year impact going forward. However the current energy crisis will be the thing that devastates this country and will last for the next 10 to 15 years after our leadership takes action. And so far all we have is no action. Without adequate energy we will face shortages of just about every commodity we need to survive. Food, heating supplies, even just fuel to get to the ER should you need it. And neither candidate has an energy plan the addresses the real issues. We need to do everything possible to get more energy. Drill now every where there is known supplies, wind, nuclear and lots of it, solar, tides, everything possible. On another thread there is a video about a military unit assigned domestically. Wait until you can't get food because it is rotting on trucks without fuel and you will see riots in this country.

I personally do want to see the US move more toward socialism because we will move to far and probably become a Marxist nation, however the coming energy crisis will move us in that direction. So I will probably vote for McCain only because he will be less likely to go in that direction than Obama and McCain may take action a little sooner on energy. And I base that solely on the no action taken by the Polsi lead congress. Allowing off shore leasing 50 miles out where there is little to no oil while foreign countries are allowed to drill much closer to our shores is just insane. However I do not like either candidate as neither one has the leadership qualities we need in the next decade.
l2: Take a look at the 2nd paragraph, first sentence in your post. I don't think you meant to say you are FOR socialism.

[Guest]

Don't give up, Billie. There still may be a few who are willing to discuss their voting intentions and their reasons without resorting to bashing the other candidate or other participants in the Political Forum. If that proves incorrect, I too will use my time more productively and enjoyably. In past days I've been drawn into posting responses that are unproductive and I promise that won't happen again. So here we go...

Unless something changes a lot in the next month, I will very likely vote for Barack Obama.

Until the last Presidential election, I voted each and every time for the Republican candidate. (What's that eleven straight times before my first vote for a Democrat?) After voting for George Bush for his first term, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 because Bush performed--or failed to perform--significantly differently from the promises he made in his campaign for election in 2000. It became very apparent very soon after his inaguration that he consistently embraced only a few narrow issues of the far right wing ideaology--tax cutting and planting democracies. He did not embrace conservative principles such as smaller government and less government spending. Nor did he make much of an effort to meaningfully address some of the important problems facing the U.S.--an energy policy, healthcare, education. Through his Vice President and many of his appointees the Bush administration proved to be as devious and deceitful as it was ineffective. Almost more importantly, Bush embraced and even fueled the partisan polarization and increasing devisivness of our government.

I like John McCain very much. I would almost certainly vote for him except for three reasons...

-- He has "hired" and embraced the same political operatives that worked to elect George Bush and is employing the same purely negative approach to seeking election. I am offended by his avoidance of running the "high road " campaign that he promised at the outset of the primaries. I am turned off by the advice his campaign seems to be giving him--and he is accepting--to avoid discussion of the real issues and problems facing the country in favor of negative sniping and attempts at character assination. John McCain seems to have reversed his own "willing to lose the election but win the war" analogy, already failing to fulfill his promises even before his election the same way Bush did. I cannot vote for a repeat of that sort of an administration.

-- McCain's campaign handlers have used his reputation as a "maverick" heavily in his campaign, even in the selection of his VP candidate. That may seem a popular personality trait, but unfortunately his actions as a maverick have weakened his ability to bring together the fractured and polarized Congress. He seems almost equally disliked by the Democrats as well as many in his own party. I believe that a President capable of bringing the two parties together from the fringes towards the middle is more important now than at any time in decades. Barack Obama has the demeanor to do that and I feel more comfortable that he could be more effective in bringing our government together than the "maverick" McCain. There's a risk that Obama could become a Bush-like idealogue, but so far he's stated no intent of trying to move the country from a far right wing direction quickly to the left. In fact, many of the campaign promises of both candidates are eerily similar. Admittedly, he has a liberal Senate voting record and that is a concern. But I hope I'm right.

-- Lastly, with what is likely to be a heavily Democratic House and Senate, a Congress which is polarized to the far left and right, it is unlikely that McCain can or will accomplish much of anything legislatively in his first and probably only term in office. If he were elected I anticipate another four years of sniping and posturing and arguing with little being accomplished, even in the face of serious national problems and issues. That would be particularly true if McCain involved those who are running his election campaign in his administration, which would be likely. If Obama is elected he will be likely be able to get may things he feels are important addressed with legislation passed by his majority control of both houses of Congress. The risk in his election is that he will embrace an ideaology as far to the left as Bush was to the right with equally disastrous results. In the worst case scenario we'd be voting for another new President in 2012, like we probably would be anyway when a then 76-year old McCain would be unlikely to run for re-election. We could always vote out Obama if he proved dangerously and irresponsibly liberal and "start all over again". I hope that doesn't happen because I don't believe that the U.S. can afford yet another four years of ineffective and irresponsible governance.

So, you can see that my choice is a "lesser of two evils" choice. I suspect I may not be alone in favoring a "less undesirable" candidate and the frustrations that decision has caused me.

This is absolutely the most eloquently written post! I feel as if you have gone into my mind, took all the jumbled thoughts rolling around in there and made them make sense!! thank you Kahuna!!!

[Guest]

Don't give up, Billie. There still may be a few who are willing to discuss their voting intentions and their reasons without resorting to bashing the other candidate or other participants in the Political Forum. If that proves incorrect, I too will use my time more productively and enjoyably. In past days I've been drawn into posting responses that are unproductive and I promise that won't happen again. So here we go...

Unless something changes a lot in the next month, I will very likely vote for Barack Obama.

Until the last Presidential election, I voted each and every time for the Republican candidate. (What's that eleven straight times before my first vote for a Democrat?) After voting for George Bush for his first term, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 because Bush performed--or failed to perform--significantly differently from the promises he made in his campaign for election in 2000. It became very apparent very soon after his inaguration that he consistently embraced only a few narrow issues of the far right wing ideaology--tax cutting and planting democracies. He did not embrace conservative principles such as smaller government and less government spending. Nor did he make much of an effort to meaningfully address some of the important problems facing the U.S.--an energy policy, healthcare, education. Through his Vice President and many of his appointees the Bush administration proved to be as devious and deceitful as it was ineffective. Almost more importantly, Bush embraced and even fueled the partisan polarization and increasing devisivness of our government.

I like John McCain very much. I would almost certainly vote for him except for three reasons...

-- He has "hired" and embraced the same political operatives that worked to elect George Bush and is employing the same purely negative approach to seeking election. I am offended by his avoidance of running the "high road " campaign that he promised at the outset of the primaries. I am turned off by the advice his campaign seems to be giving him--and he is accepting--to avoid discussion of the real issues and problems facing the country in favor of negative sniping and attempts at character assination. John McCain seems to have reversed his own "willing to lose the election but win the war" analogy, already failing to fulfill his promises even before his election the same way Bush did. I cannot vote for a repeat of that sort of an administration.

-- McCain's campaign handlers have used his reputation as a "maverick" heavily in his campaign, even in the selection of his VP candidate. That may seem a popular personality trait, but unfortunately his actions as a maverick have weakened his ability to bring together the fractured and polarized Congress. He seems almost equally disliked by the Democrats as well as many in his own party. I believe that a President capable of bringing the two parties together from the fringes towards the middle is more important now than at any time in decades. Barack Obama has the demeanor to do that and I feel more comfortable that he could be more effective in bringing our government together than the "maverick" McCain. There's a risk that Obama could become a Bush-like idealogue, but so far he's stated no intent of trying to move the country from a far right wing direction quickly to the left. In fact, many of the campaign promises of both candidates are eerily similar. Admittedly, he has a liberal Senate voting record and that is a concern. But I hope I'm right.

-- Lastly, with what is likely to be a heavily Democratic House and Senate, a Congress which is polarized to the far left and right, it is unlikely that McCain can or will accomplish much of anything legislatively in his first and probably only term in office. If he were elected I anticipate another four years of sniping and posturing and arguing with little being accomplished, even in the face of serious national problems and issues. That would be particularly true if McCain involved those who are running his election campaign in his administration, which would be likely. If Obama is elected he will be likely be able to get may things he feels are important addressed with legislation passed by his majority control of both houses of Congress. The risk in his election is that he will embrace an ideaology as far to the left as Bush was to the right with equally disastrous results. In the worst case scenario we'd be voting for another new President in 2012, like we probably would be anyway when a then 76-year old McCain would be unlikely to run for re-election. We could always vote out Obama if he proved dangerously and irresponsibly liberal and "start all over again". I hope that doesn't happen because I don't believe that the U.S. can afford yet another four years of ineffective and irresponsible governance.

So, you can see that my choice is a "lesser of two evils" choice. I suspect I may not be alone in favoring a "less undesirable" candidate and the frustrations that decision has caused me.
Kahuna:

I disagree with your reasoning. While I too think it the lesser of 2 evils, I cannot subscribe to the notions and ideals that Obama has in mind for this country. I cherish my freedom and liberties and the original intentions of the Founding Fathers of this nation.

To say that Obama will get things done is in my opinion, be careful what you wish for.

Socialism is a dangerous system and no country has come out from it unscathed. Do a bit more research and see if you can't change your intentions for your vote November 4.

Respectfully.

[Guest]

Kahuna:

I disagree with your reasoning. While I too think it the lesser of 2 evils, I cannot subscribe to the notions and ideals that Obama has in mind for this country. I cherish my freedom and liberties and the original intentions of the Founding Fathers of this nation.

To say that Obama will get things done is in my opinion, be careful what you wish for.

Socialism is a dangerous system and no country has come out from it unscathed. Do a bit more research and see if you can't change your intentions for your vote November 4.

Respectfully.


RETIREDGUY.....I am with you !! The road that the voters seem to be choosing to walk is a very dangerous path.

Kahuana said that in 4 years we could just vote out Sen Obama if he goes too far left, WHICH IS A GIVEN, but imagine the Supreme Court Justice or two he will appoint.....imagine our economic situation in 4 years. Listen, we are not talking simply a move in direction, we are talking about RADICALISM...something this country had not seen.

[Guest]

BTK - I like your idea - Kahuna, as always you have an interesting post. I think you should have written editorials for a living - maybe you still can.
Anyway, I am voting a split ticket. I am voting for Obama, because I am hopeful for the war ending in Iraq (and making them pay for it until it does) and his alternative energy proposals. I also think we need to do something with our educational system to re-engage parents and youth to strive for a "great" education. The only ones that seem to be doing that now in our society are the people that have come from other countries and their children have a chance to go to our schools. They excel, but not our average student. Anyway, that's my thoughts. I am voting Republican on the Sheriff for Orange County and a few of our local politicians.

[Guest]

Socialism? Not me. No way.

But we need to consider the developments of the last couple of weeks. We have "nationalized"...socialized, if you will...the U.S. housing industry, the insurance industry and the banking industry. In some cases the injection of "our" money has been structured so that the industries and companies involved can be re-privatized. But I'm not counting on that anytime soon. But make no mistake, important elements of our economy have been socialized under our very noses.

Look to the near-term future. Only two of the three U.S., auto companies are American-owned. All three are on financial tender hooks. I watch this industry more closely than most because I worked in it for about ten years and my oldest son works for Ford. What will our government do if GM or Ford or both call in a month or two and say that they need the injection of many billions of doallars in order to survive? Will we add the U.S. auto industry to those that we've nationalized...or socialized? Will we have a choice?

What would happen if Boeing or MacDonald Douglas called Washington and said they'd go under without the injection of more billions of our money? Where do we draw the line? WILL we draw the line?

The cause of these developments didn't happen on the watch of the Democrats in the last two years or the Republicans in the previous six. The erosion of our national financial discipline and even our national morality has taken several decades. But we're here now. It is what it is. Our economy is in a heap of trouble and it was caused by a dramatic erosion of American cultural, business and political mores, a deterioration of our willingness to take the time to think. Our situation won't get fixed fast. Some think we're headed for an actual depression. I hope not. I pray not.

But there's little point in arguing whether we favor capitalism or socialism. The principles of capitalism have failed to overcome the incompetence and irresponsibility of those people who WE democratically elected. Capitalism couldn't overcome the personal greed of Wall Street and elsewhere (add Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, and more to Lehman, AIG, Merrill, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, IndyMac and Wa-Mu on the list). Our future will be much better served by thoughtfully considering who we should choose to represent us in the future. What do they stand for? Can they be trusted? Are they smart enough? Does the experience of the candidates suggest they can begin to resolve our economic problems? Which of them is more likely to provide leadership to our broken government? What is the evidence for all those questions?

Personal standards and morals of the candidates seem to be more important considerations than the shorthand descriptions of what our two political parties stand for--those descriptions have long since proven inaccurate. We should ignore the personal criticisms and parsed words and character assasinations being used by the campaign operatives of both parties. They are designed to mislead and misdirect thoughtful consideration. And following the premise of the initial message in this thread, we should probably discount or reject those among us here who present arguments and reasons for choosing one candidate over the other based on generalized criticisms designed more to evoke an emotional response than consideration of the facts and logic.

I had to admit it, but some very important elements of our economic life have been socialized recently. It seems to me that we should be thinking which of the Presidential candidates would be more likely to lead the country back out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into. We should resist being manipulated by the political operatives and Madison Avenue types who are trying their darndest to get us to make a voting decision without really thinking thru the problems facing us and choosing the candidate that we think is more likely to get us going in the direction we desire.

[Guest]

My best friend here in MA is a immigrant from the Chech Republic and came here as a child. He all too well remembers what happened to his family because someone (Hitler, a Socialest) knew what was best for his people. He whole heartedly endorses the Republican Party, even knowing their faults. He knows first hand what freedoms he gained in coming to this country and doesn't agree with the Democrats viewpoint on how our country should be run. We are friends in part because we both believe in self determination, personal rewards for our initiative, a strong military and that we, not government, know what is best for us.

[Guest]

My best friend here in MA is a immigrant from the Chech Republic and came here as a child. He all too well remembers what happened to his family because someone (Hitler, a Socialest) knew what was best for his people. He whole heartedly endorses the Republican Party, even knowing their faults. He knows first hand what freedoms he gained in coming to this country and doesn't agree with the Democrats viewpoint on how our country should be run. We are friends in part because we both believe in self determination, personal rewards for our initiative, a strong military and that we, not government, know what is best for us.


I used to be a staunch hardworking member of the Democratic party. They have been hi jacked totally by the radical left wing of the party. Rev Jessie Jackson was the voice of the party for years, then the Michael Moores (remember him sitting in the Presidential box with President Carter at the convention).