Slashdot Mirror

The Bush Administration has the will, the moral committment, and the popular support necessary to put an end to the "War on Drugs". You'll see this in action within a year.

Actually, the War on Drugs is pretty popular with the public, particularly the blue-collar rural populace, which is a strong Republican voting block. Years of Reagan activity against drug use has taken root in the heart of conservative voters. Bush can't and won't end the War on Drugs. If he felt that it needed to be curtailed, he would do it quietly, like he has done for environmental programs under the EPA and Department of Interior in his new budget proposal. There's a lot of research, investigation, and enforcement programs that got cut that the public doesn't know about.

(I spent about an hour watching CSPAN when they had a conference one day on all the environmental budget cuts. I found it ironic that he said that the restrictions on arsenic in drinking water needs more scientific research while cutting several departments responsible for that kind of research and the departments that would've tested the drinking water for toxin if the research did pan out.)

Anyway, if he wanted to cut drug enforcement, he'd do it quietly. However, the Bush administration is taking a tough stance on "renewing" the War on Drugs. You can also note that the Republican-lead Congress last year approved more than $1.3 billion to fight drug trade.

Irrelevant. This Administration is not corrupt.

I believe that have adequately responded to this in another post. If you wish to close your eyes to the truth, that is your problem. George W. Bush has committed perjury and stock fraud. He has been responsible to the condemning of personal property that was later given over as lucrative real estate to the owner of the Texas Rangers. He has been rewarding Oil and Mining companies by rolling back government programs intended to protect our people from pollution and to protect our land for future generations. He has opposed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform measure, the best means of reducing corporate/union purchases of politicians, and supported another bill which institutionalizes soft money in a manner that allows wealthy individuals (Republican backers) to contribute millions while restricting unions (Democratic Party backers). He is attempting a huge tax cut intended to profit the richest 1% of our nation, and he has used previous existing tax holes to get out of millions in property taxes in Texas. Hah! People think this is the "moral" candidate.

Bush comes from the same stock as the man who was up his neck in the Iran-Contra affair, who was responsible for the S&L scandals, and who has an even higher body count surrounding him than Bill Clinton. He and his brothers have gotten their power through illicit business deals and use of the Bush family name. They were born into wealth and have ridden a train of Bush family supporters into power. Certainly, if he wasn't a Bush, the Harken oil fiasco would've taken care of him a long time ago, and we'd never be hearing about him now.

Open your eyes! The Bush administration promises to be the most corrupt in years. It's Teapot Dome all over again, with government kickbacks for oil all the way. The Bush budget cut is rife with budget slashes for everything that Oil, Gas, and Mining didn't like. Bush's past business dealing, and his dealing as a Texas governor shows that he will be more than willing to do what it takes to preserve his own interests and keep his family wealthy.

It's no coincidence that the Left always resorts to personal attacks, smear tactics, and "digging up dirt" on their political adversaries. They can't win any other way.

Three words: conservative talk radio.

<sarcasm>
I'm sure that such respectful, well-known conservative members of the media, such as Rush Limbaugh, have never stooped to character assassination. Why, it would be ridiculous to insinuate that their entire media empires are based off of namecalling and pigeonholing people into a nebulous, evil group known as "liberals" who can have their views safely dismissed as irrelevant for belonging to this group. They're just the nicest people who always stick to the issues and argue their points elloquently without rhetoric and blustering. In fact, they'd never stoop so low as to run comedy segments with people impersonating well-known Democrats and making fools of them.
</sarcasm>

Oh, and how about Attorney General John Ashcroft's character assassination attempts?

You know, it's surprising to hear a conservative willing to call GWB's drug experimentation in 1972 "alleged" when it's clearly on record and to dismiss it as unimportant since it happened so long ago. Where was all this sympathy for experimentation when Bill Clinton admitted to trying pot in the height of the hippie era? You didn't see much sympathy from Democrats about Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, about the Whitewater affair, or about his pot comment. Republicans were howling for blood. Oh, but now that a Republican is in office, they seem pretty quiet about his lying under oath, his stock fraud, and his excessive seizure of private property for real estate profitteering.

What? You haven't heard about all this? Maybe the Left Wing just isn't as serious about muckraking as you say they are.

There's a difference between personal attacks and revealing that a person has a history of corruption and bad leadership. Facts are facts. His record clearly shows that he is not the man to be leading the war on drugs. This info's all out there. It took me only about 15 minutes with Altavista to find this information. If this is all so clearly out there, why isn't the vast "Left Wing Mudslinging Conspiracy" promoting it more, like the Republicans did with Clinton's shady record?

Your argument is false. Republican's have been far more prone to the use of lies and character assassination than Democrats for as far back as I can remember (the Reagan years).

It's no coincidence that the Left always resorts to personal attacks, smear tactics, and "digging up dirt" on their political adversaries. They can't win any other way.

Three words: conservative talk radio.

<sarcasm>
I'm sure that such respectful, well-known conservative members of the media, such as Rush Limbaugh, have never stooped to character assassination. Why, it would be ridiculous to insinuate that their entire media empires are based off of namecalling and pigeonholing people into a nebulous, evil group known as "liberals" who can have their views safely dismissed as irrelevant for belonging to this group. They're just the nicest people who always stick to the issues and argue their points elloquently without rhetoric and blustering. In fact, they'd never stoop so low as to run comedy segments with people impersonating well-known Democrats and making fools of them.
</sarcasm>

Oh, and how about Attorney General John Ashcroft's character assassination attempts?

You know, it's surprising to hear a conservative willing to call GWB's drug experimentation in 1972 "alleged" when it's clearly on record and to dismiss it as unimportant since it happened so long ago. Where was all this sympathy for experimentation when Bill Clinton admitted to trying pot in the height of the hippie era? You didn't see much sympathy from Democrats about Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, about the Whitewater affair, or about his pot comment. Republicans were howling for blood. Oh, but now that a Republican is in office, they seem pretty quiet about his lying under oath, his stock fraud, and his excessive seizure of private property for real estate profitteering.

What? You haven't heard about all this? Maybe the Left Wing just isn't as serious about muckraking as you say they are.

There's a difference between personal attacks and revealing that a person has a history of corruption and bad leadership. Facts are facts. His record clearly shows that he is not the man to be leading the war on drugs. This info's all out there. It took me only about 15 minutes with Altavista to find this information. If this is all so clearly out there, why isn't the vast "Left Wing Mudslinging Conspiracy" promoting it more, like the Republicans did with Clinton's shady record?

Your argument is false. Republican's have been far more prone to the use of lies and character assassination than Democrats for as far back as I can remember (the Reagan years).

It's no coincidence that the Left always resorts to personal attacks, smear tactics, and "digging up dirt" on their political adversaries. They can't win any other way.

Three words: conservative talk radio.

<sarcasm>
I'm sure that such respectful, well-known conservative members of the media, such as Rush Limbaugh, have never stooped to character assassination. Why, it would be ridiculous to insinuate that their entire media empires are based off of namecalling and pigeonholing people into a nebulous, evil group known as "liberals" who can have their views safely dismissed as irrelevant for belonging to this group. They're just the nicest people who always stick to the issues and argue their points elloquently without rhetoric and blustering. In fact, they'd never stoop so low as to run comedy segments with people impersonating well-known Democrats and making fools of them.
</sarcasm>

Oh, and how about Attorney General John Ashcroft's character assassination attempts?

You know, it's surprising to hear a conservative willing to call GWB's drug experimentation in 1972 "alleged" when it's clearly on record and to dismiss it as unimportant since it happened so long ago. Where was all this sympathy for experimentation when Bill Clinton admitted to trying pot in the height of the hippie era? You didn't see much sympathy from Democrats about Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, about the Whitewater affair, or about his pot comment. Republicans were howling for blood. Oh, but now that a Republican is in office, they seem pretty quiet about his lying under oath, his stock fraud, and his excessive seizure of private property for real estate profitteering.

What? You haven't heard about all this? Maybe the Left Wing just isn't as serious about muckraking as you say they are.

There's a difference between personal attacks and revealing that a person has a history of corruption and bad leadership. Facts are facts. His record clearly shows that he is not the man to be leading the war on drugs. This info's all out there. It took me only about 15 minutes with Altavista to find this information. If this is all so clearly out there, why isn't the vast "Left Wing Mudslinging Conspiracy" promoting it more, like the Republicans did with Clinton's shady record?

Your argument is false. Republican's have been far more prone to the use of lies and character assassination than Democrats for as far back as I can remember (the Reagan years).

It's no coincidence that the Left always resorts to personal attacks, smear tactics, and "digging up dirt" on their political adversaries. They can't win any other way.

Three words: conservative talk radio.

<sarcasm>
I'm sure that such respectful, well-known conservative members of the media, such as Rush Limbaugh, have never stooped to character assassination. Why, it would be ridiculous to insinuate that their entire media empires are based off of namecalling and pigeonholing people into a nebulous, evil group known as "liberals" who can have their views safely dismissed as irrelevant for belonging to this group. They're just the nicest people who always stick to the issues and argue their points elloquently without rhetoric and blustering. In fact, they'd never stoop so low as to run comedy segments with people impersonating well-known Democrats and making fools of them.
</sarcasm>

Oh, and how about Attorney General John Ashcroft's character assassination attempts?

You know, it's surprising to hear a conservative willing to call GWB's drug experimentation in 1972 "alleged" when it's clearly on record and to dismiss it as unimportant since it happened so long ago. Where was all this sympathy for experimentation when Bill Clinton admitted to trying pot in the height of the hippie era? You didn't see much sympathy from Democrats about Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, about the Whitewater affair, or about his pot comment. Republicans were howling for blood. Oh, but now that a Republican is in office, they seem pretty quiet about his lying under oath, his stock fraud, and his excessive seizure of private property for real estate profitteering.

What? You haven't heard about all this? Maybe the Left Wing just isn't as serious about muckraking as you say they are.

There's a difference between personal attacks and revealing that a person has a history of corruption and bad leadership. Facts are facts. His record clearly shows that he is not the man to be leading the war on drugs. This info's all out there. It took me only about 15 minutes with Altavista to find this information. If this is all so clearly out there, why isn't the vast "Left Wing Mudslinging Conspiracy" promoting it more, like the Republicans did with Clinton's shady record?

Your argument is false. Republican's have been far more prone to the use of lies and character assassination than Democrats for as far back as I can remember (the Reagan years).

So maybe dubya should not be allowed to vote? He is a welfare recipient. He built his Rangers stadium on the backs of the taxpayers. In Texas, a child under welfare gets a whopping $38.00/month. That means dubya's baseball stadium deal (which is just layered in sleaze) is the equivilent of funding 300,000 welfare children for one year. In fact, he has had a free ride through life on his name alone. He even said himself "I am all name and no money."
As an aside, I have always wondered why those outraged at social welfare never mention corporate welfare recipients. Neither Microsoft nor Cisco pay any taxes. What about ADM? They receive all kinds of taxpayer money. I am pretty sure the spending on corporate welfare is an order of magnitude or two larger than welfare for the unfortunate.
Read more about the shrub here .

I agree with this whole-hartedly. I hate it when reporters spin their biases into articles that are not in the "Opinion" section.

That's amazing about the Gore vs. Bush comments in terms of being boring. Honestly, if GWB hadn't smoked so much crack in his life he might understand the issues enough to talk about them instead of his weekend. I fear what will happen to the US if Bush wins the presidency...boring or not, at least Gore knows how to run a country.

For some facts on the Bush administration , visit: http://www.georgebush2000.com

check out GW's record in Texas I'd laugh if it weren't so fucking sad.

But if you think Bush will be any better take a look at this website: GeorgeBush2000.com. I'm sure a bunch of it is fudging statistics and judging his record based on the current conditions in Texas versus Texas before he became governor. But the insider trading stuff is a little scary and has a ring of thuth to it.