Tired of the Bush/Gore option? Check out Reform Party and Hagelin

ok, i don't want to turn this into a huge politcal debate, but if anyone out there is as sick of the whole bush/gore menu and don't feel like voting for either of them, i suggest checking out a few sites: www.reformparty.org www.hagelin.org John Hagelin (that's Dr. John Hagelin, thank you) "is a Harvard-trained quantum physicist; Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy; and Reform Party and Natural Law Party presidential candidate, who has worked for decades to promote public policies in health care, education, energy and the environment, crime, defense, etc., that are prevention-oriented, scientifically proven, and in accord with natural law." Hagelin has some excellent ideas in my opinion and i highly urge all of you to please read through some of the pages on those websites, checking out the stances on certain issues. thanks. [This message has been edited by coleslaw (edited 08-05-2000).] __________________ http://www.reformparty.org/ :0) __________________ thanks for the correction renots. __________________ In addition, Hagelin will be on the ballot in all 50 states, which is a great feat for a third party to accomplish. __________________ i hate to beg, but could i get some input of impressions here?? thanks. __________________ Is he for less work and more play? :0) __________________ umm, sure!! haha __________________ dick cheney(g. dubya bush's running mate) is as far to the right as anyone could possibly be. that's far too conservative for my liking. and gore, well, i won't ever start... anyone else have any input? [This message has been edited by coleslaw (edited 08-09-2000).] __________________ quote: Originally posted by coleslaw: ralph nader (g. dubya bush's running mate) is as far to the right as anyone could possibly be. that's far too conservative for my liking. and gore, well, i won't ever start... anyone else have any input? What do you find that is too conservative about Nader? I just wish he would get on the Tax Cut bandwagon. :0) __________________ I'm going to get up on my little pedestal here, and express my opinions. I've a very opinionated person, and I tend to do this from time to time. I apologize if anyone is angered, offended, or inflamed by my remarks, because that's not my intent. That said, here I go. Either Bush or Gore is going to win this election, and you (the collective group of people reading this) and I both know that it would take nothing short of a miracle (a.k.a. both dying when their planes collided randomly). What concerns me is that Bush is going to win. For George W. to be president would be very, very, very bad. Let's face it - while Clinton made some mistakes, he was a smart guy. You can hate him as much as you want, but he was a smart guy. Bush, on the other hand, is an idiot. Listening to him speak makes me cringe, most notably his mindless diatribe at the Convention in Philly. I mean, did you listen to that? It was my understanding that he had spent three months working on and editting that speech, but it still remained a sorry bunch of one sentence bits. Then we have Gore. To the public, he seems a completely stone-cold person devoid of any personality or emotions. Clearly, he needs to work on getting his ideas across better to the public. However, many people have come forward and described how he works in a small group - he's smart, organized, and presents himself very well. While Gore needs to work on some personality traits, ultimately what Americans should question when voting is "How well can this person lead this country of 250+ million people? How can he handle the most powerful country's interests in international situations?" Gore is a strong man, who will lead this country well. We are not voting for personalities, people, we're voting for someone to do our bidding for at least the next four years. Do you want a rich daddy's boy who puts on a nice smile but is a complete and utter FOOL or do you want someone that can lead this country into the new millenium? __________________ quote: Originally posted by Ben_Williams: Do you want a rich daddy's boy who puts on a nice smile but is a complete and utter FOOL or do you want someone that can lead this country into the new millenium? Which rich daddy's boy are we talking about? Al Gore wasn't exactly Horatio Alger :0) __________________ The way I see it, a republican presidency doesn't mean that everyone who is progressive has to roll over on their back and play dead. Conversely, a democratic president doesn't mean everything will turn out honkey-dorey either. If anything the creeping rollbacks on civil liberties and due process in the last eight years definately need to be addressed, probably by not reaffirming the administration that has led to this. I believed in the promise of big government the last two elections; I'm not going to be a sucker any longer and allow this country to devolve towards nazism. Neither should anyone else. :0) __________________ quote: Originally posted by Ben_Williams: ultimately what Americans should question when voting is "How well can this person lead this country of 250+ million people? How can he handle the most powerful country's interests in international situations?" I don't particularily care if the president is an intellectual giant or not; its not like he's running the whole show. What matters to me is if he radiates the values of honesty, straightforwardness, and fair play. :0) __________________ In response to Mr. Williams. Mr. Bush (W.) is not an intellectual. His father was. Even Mr. Clinton is. Reagan was not. Of the last three Presidents, Mr. Reagan has made the most tangible and important difference in our world, namely, causing the demise of the Soviet Union (even though it happened during his successor's administration). While I can appreciate an intellectual president like John Kennedy (comfort with intellectuals, Harvard-trained in the classics, and all-around classy guy), when it comes to the tough decisions and major management skills, the strong Reagan/Nixon types have been the go-to guys for us. As you have said, Mr. Gore is not the most loquacious or graceful politician, but neither is he the intellectual you make him out to be. I could write a virtual tome on the stupid remarks I've heard him make in past (ones to rival Mr. Quayle). But what I find more distressing than his oratorical skills (or lack thereof) and idiotic comments is his political agenda. He is entirely too far left (and largely mistaken) on the environment. But that's not all. He is horribly inconsistent on China. While he says he abhors human rights violations and pollution, he advocates increased trade with the country that forces women to have abortions in the name of population control, that beats and imprisons those who speak out against the government, that runs over students with tanks when they protest for democracy. He wants improved ties with the largest coal-burning country in the world (percentage-wise, not raw population numbers). His inconsistencies and even those issues on which he is consistent--widening the net of government control (ie, welfare expenses) and cutting defense spending--these worry me more than his intellectual capacity (which I contend is not that great, and certainly not much greater than his opponent's). I enjoyed reading Mr. Williams' remarks; they are thought-provoking and insightful, which is rare in an online forum. I might not agree with him, but I look forward to reading more of his opinions. (We opinionated people appreciate each other.) I would also like to suggest a book by Richard Hofstadter, entitled ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE. It traces the intellectual trends (or non-intellectual trends, as the case may be) in American history, including observations on politics and politicians. I think you'll find it interesting, and will likely agree with much or most of what he argues. Cheers, Jennifer