Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« September 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
You are not logged in. Log in
Russell's Weblog
Wednesday, September 8, 2004
The lesser of two evils (yet again).
Should I vote for George Bush or John Kerry in 2004? I am the only undecided person I know of relative to this question. The ideologues on either side have long ago made up their minds, but I have strong reservations about supporting either man.

I should begin by stating that republicans have the right politics on both taxation and gun control. At the same time, Bush is responsible for the poorly thought out occupation of Iraq and a huge budget deficit. Furthermore, by surrounding himself with rogues like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft his ?moral compass? is suspect.

Despite my disliking Bush, I cannot think of a single reason to vote for John Kerry. His selection of an ambulance chaser for a running mate turns me off, as does his lackluster record in the senate. His half-hearted investigation of the Iran-Contra scandal was a disservice to the country, and his support of legislation that attacks our second amendment makes him impossible to vote for.

So, what shall I do? I am tired of constantly voting for the lesser of two evils, but I will vote.

Posted by cantina/russ at 5:18 PM PDT
Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:02 AM PDT

Name: Kent Boggess

KERRY IS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS

In middle of the night on Aug. 20 a boulder careened off a road being built to a mountaintop removal operation, crashed into a home hundreds of feet below and crushed a sleeping toddler to death. Jeremy Davidson was only three years old. Coalfield residents have long asked authorities to insist that mining operations take far greater precautions with blasting and the dangers of flyrock. They wish to be ignored no longer!


So which would you prefer? Politicians whose campaigns are financed by special interests like the coal industry, big pharmaceutical companies, the timber industry and developers, or politicians who are financed through public funds, i.e. YOUR TAX DOLLARS? You the taxpayer would "own" public financed candidates. Since 2000, voter-owned elections ? a rather freeing concept ? has been working well in Maine and Arizon

View Latest Entries