It seems to me that Perot appealed to enough of the disaffected lower-middle class Southern Republican voters to clear the way for Clinton.

Bloomberg's constituency is a little different, IMHO - the disaffected cultural Republicans who aren't bible bashers.

Different rift, same political effect of splitting the Repub consituency.

But this is surmise, not based on much objective fact. Anyone have actual polling data, perhaps focus group results on Perot's voters?

Why is no Pres candidate other than RP and DK advocating the end of the fascist "war" on "drugs"?

Because they're beholden to big Pharma, Big Law, and keeping the niggers down?

This white nigger says fuck them all.

Just watch the paramilitary, jingoistic behavior at all levels of society: Football, marching bands, "support the troops", corporate "yes sir!" authoritarianism. Plus - war is pure consumption, the highest form of consumerism ever invented. Especially if you can do it somewhere else and fuck up someone else's country. And have jobs for the boys and profits for Boeing and Haliburton and Exxon.

Buy a President who can mobilize support for the war machine.

The military budget could be cut in half while increasing the number of troops. Cut: 1) cadres of fat-assed generals who should be getting real jobs; 2) Boondoggle projects like the magic missile shield in the sky; 3) mercenary armies; 4) permanent bases in foreign lands.

Increase: citizen militias.

But: citizen militias have a drastic tendency to think for themselves and resist tyranny. The Bushco solution: keep sending the citizen militias that exist to Iraq, an illegal, pointless, stupid, evil, incompetent, invasion. result: citizen militias wither. Yay Bushco!

This is the biggest load. We are in fact occupying two foreign countries militarily. This is NOT a war. A war involves battles against the military of another nation. In this one thing, GW was right with his "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier fascist photo op. The war in Iraq ended when Saddam's forces surendered. After that, the US of A became an occupying invader.

Calling something a war does not make it so, no matter how much you love war. Neither the "war" on "drugs" nor the "war" on "terror" are wars - they are rallying cries for simpleton jingoistic authoritarian sheep. Like the courageous anonymous.

of an active militia comprised of every able-bodied man up to the age of fifty. Legendary (Swiss Guard) and effective - and Switzerland has never been successfully invaded.

But of course they have a real democracy. Not a corporatist-owned oligarchy.

Our vaunted super-tech military is currently failing in Iraq and Afghanistan to people armed with ak47's, simple bombs, and guts.

I'd say there never was a time we needed our squirrel guns and beef jerky more.

There is a difference - driving around armed to the teeth, randomly shooting civilians is not "combat". It's hostile occupation.

I think it's you who live in a fantasy world - and it's a sick fantasy. Go back to watching Fox news.

Would that be Faux News? You really believe that crap? Where victory is within our grasp and sun shines out Bush's ass?

Any criticism is ignorant, unhinged, and hysterical. Hell, I forgot!

Sending honorable soldiers on a dishonorable mission doesn't render the mission magically honorable.

And continuously shouting "Support the troops" while sticking your fingers in your ears makes you part of the problem.

If you don't agree, you are a simpleton! And a "BDS numbskull", whatever.

Does "Hooked on Phonics" eliminate critical thinking skills among the anonymously home-schooled?

"However, if you disagree with his characterisation of the force that contains 1.4 million of your countrymen and women as mindless random killers, then feel free to say so."

I think you might want to ask one of the 4 million Iraqis who have fled their homes how they feel about the US military in their country. Or ask some of the family members of the many tens of thousands of civilians who have died as a direct result of our invasion how they feel about the inherent wonder bread goodness of the US of A.

No matter how clean and honorable a soldier is, if you send him on a dishonorable mission, he is dishonored.

But the responsibility lies with the criminals who sent him.

I know you don't get this, but other readers do. They aren't aggressively ignorant.

The video of their random shootings of civilians is available for all to see. If what you say is right, why aren't they being tried?

Why was tape of criminal torture destroyed?

I may be mentally ill, as you say - but I believe my eyes, not the lies of criminals. Why do you believe them? Are you mentally ill too? Or just slow? Or complicit?

Impeachable?

But Mrs. Pelosi says the President is unimpeachable.

Okey dokey. Back to work.

You know - the ones that help you believe something in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Merely asserting that "there were no explosives in the WTC" doesn't make it so. How do you explain the collapse of building 7, which was not hit by anything other than debris?

Your ad hominem approach betrays the weakness (or complete absence of truth) in your argument.