i can't vote for either of these clowns

[Lobster Cowboy]

i just can't cast a vote for either kerry or bush. does anyone realize that every four years, we vote the same exact person into office? how did we get locked into this two party nonsense? what genius decided that all political thought had to evenly divided into only two factions?

can anyone here truly get behind kerry as a candidate? as a man? he is such an unbelievable douche. i want to put his fat droopy head in a clamp to fix that shit up. during the debate, i wanted to kick the self-satisfied smirk off his deformed jay leno face.

and what about the president? bush is not the satan he's portrayed as, but shit. he is so far up the corporate nation's ass, he could wash for weeks and still have their stench. and what's the deal with the cock-eyed glances he's always giving? he looks like a confused chimp. he talks about iraq like i even care anymore. fuck the ungrateful iraqis who have nothing better do to than kill american soldiers who did them the favor of removing saddam-the-horse's ass. why don't we reinstall him as despot, and see how they like it?

liberals and conservatives can both suck my cock. i want a candidate with SOME scruples. some thought of their own. i don't want some jackass who talks about vietman until i want to punch his lights out. i don't want a guy that repeats the same rhetoric over and over and over and over and fucking over.

who can i vote for? that whack-job nader? michael badnarik of the libertarian party? one of the greens? i feel helpless. america hasn't had a good president since harry s. truman took the reigns from FDR in 1945. i challenge people to read about that man...he's probably the last honest american to hold such high office.

but whatever. none of that solves the dillema. who to vote for? hell if i know.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

i just can't cast a vote for either kerry or bush. does anyone realize that every four years, we vote the same exact person into office? how did we get locked into this two party nonsense?

<hr></blockquote>
I'll guess the 50's had something to do with it.


<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

what genius decided that all political thought had to evenly divided into only two factions?

<hr></blockquote>
McCarthy?

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

can anyone here truly get behind kerry as a candidate?

<hr></blockquote>
Not really.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

as a man?

<hr></blockquote>
Probably not.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

he is such an unbelievable douche. i want to put his fat droopy head in a clamp to fix that shit up. during the debate, i wanted to kick the self-satisfied smirk off his deformed jay leno face.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

and what about the president? bush is not the satan he's portrayed as, but shit. he is so far up the corporate nation's ass, he could wash for weeks and still have their stench. and what's the deal with the cock-eyed glances he's always giving? he looks like a confused chimp. he talks about iraq like i even care anymore. fuck the ungrateful iraqis who have nothing better do to than kill american soldiers who did them the favor of removing saddam-the-horse's ass. why don't we reinstall him as despot, and see how they like it?

<hr></blockquote>
"He is the root of all evil." <-- that's why

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

liberals and conservatives can both suck my cock. i want a candidate with SOME scruples. some thought of their own. i don't want some jackass who talks about vietman until i want to punch his lights out. i don't want a guy that repeats the same rhetoric over and over and over and over and fucking over.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=smilies/werd.gif>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

but whatever. none of that solves the dillema. who to vote for.? hell if i know.

<hr></blockquote>
After some IRC discussion, it seems that Mr. T is the only choice left.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> i just can't cast a vote for either kerry or bush. does
> anyone realize that every four years, we vote the same exact
> person into office?

Do you not watch the news or something? Do you have any idea how much it mattered the Bush won the 2000 election? The Iraq War alone has directly affected millions of lives around the world. Jobs are getting shipped overseas, the surplus is gone, international views of the US have deteriorated. Even if you agree with these decisions, I don't see how you can say that it didn't matter.


> how did we get locked into this two
> party nonsense? what genius decided that all political
> thought had to evenly divided into only two factions?

You're clearly oversimplifying the issue here. Although it may not be the best system possible, it has shown itself to provide relative stability overall and the rational behind it is much more complicated than belief in philosophical duality.


> can anyone here truly get behind kerry as a candidate? as a
> man? he is such an unbelievable douche. i want to put his
> fat droopy head in a clamp to fix that shit up. during the
> debate, i wanted to kick the self-satisfied smirk off his
> deformed jay leno face.

So you're unhappy with him because you don't like his face? It's things like that that put these "douches" into office. If you vote like a shallow doufus, they're going to gear their campaigns towards shallow doufuses.


> and what about the president? and what's the deal with the
> cock-eyed glances he's
> always giving? he looks like a confused chimp. he talks
> about iraq like i even care anymore.

That's the worst reason for disliking Bush that I've ever seen.


> fuck the ungrateful
> iraqis who have nothing better do to than kill american
> soldiers who did them the favor of removing
> saddam-the-horse's ass. why don't we reinstall him as
> despot, and see how they like it?

Why don't you try thinking outside of that comfortable little box you've built? Besides the fact that you're associating the actions of a few rogue Iraqis with the entire population, you're ignoring the fact that a lot of people's lives actually are much worse as a result of the US invasion. Just like you, they want their lives to be better.


> liberals and conservatives can both suck my cock.

As much as I'm sure you'd enjoy that, waving it around like this won't make it anymore likely that we'll do it.


> i want a
> candidate with SOME scruples. some thought of their own.

Both Bush and Kerry have those things. If you can't separate their public personae from their actual political positions (none of which you've mentioned so far), then it's probably good that you're not voting. We live in a democracy, and that means that politicians have to be rhetorical and generic if they want to be elected. Do you suppose it's a coincidence that the most interesting and outspoken candidates (like Nader and Buchanan) are completely unelectable?


> america hasn't had a good president since harry
> s. truman took the reigns from FDR in 1945. i challenge
> people to read about that man...he's probably the last
> honest american to hold such high office.

I doubt you'd have said that at the time; in fact, I'm sure you'd have been bitching and moaning just as you're doing now. Everything you've complained about so far has either been superficial or a media stereotype. The sad thing is that I think you're echoing the sentiments of a large fraction of the population, all expecting their views to be echoed exactly by the people in office. I wonder why that never works out.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[ruler26]

Look, Kerry isn't the best candidate, but he's the only candidate running who has some form of common sense, and he's the only candidate who has a chance of winning against Bush

I don't see how Kerry could possibly do worse than Bush, and while I'm not sure what Kerry might do, I can honestly say that I don't think there will be an America within the next four years if Bush wins.

For this election, screw this "No voting" and "Vote third party/libertarian" crap. You're just throwing your vote away, honestly. This may be really freakin' close. Perhaps down to the individual vote. If you don't like Bush, then just vote Kerry. If you're voting for Nader or "write in," then don't even bother going to the polls. Why bother appearing as the 5 percent statistic of American voters who did nothing for this (historic) election.


<P ID="signature"></P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

good little college liberal. your rhetoric looks like it was compiled from a stack of salon articles.

when you're done with it, you should return your sanctimonious behavior back to janeane garofalo. she'd like it back now.

the two party system churns out the same reprobates election after election. if you fail to recognize this, you're more myopic than mr. magoo. bush and kerry are two heads on the same monster.

obey.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> the two party system churns out the same reprobates election
> after election. if you fail to recognize this, you're more
> myopic than mr. magoo.

And if you fail to produce any actual backing for your argument, I'll be prone to think your rhetoric is as empty as that spewing forth from the candidates themselves. All you've been able to give me so far is stereotypes and aimless bitching. You think any candidate would have invaded Iraq or initiated the Patriot Act? I'll grant that you may be dense, but not that dense.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[IceWolf20]

> I don't see how Kerry could possibly do worse than Bush, and
> while I'm not sure what Kerry might do, I can honestly say
> that I don't think there will be an America within the next
> four years if Bush wins.

<img src=smilies/werd.gif>

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Danoz]

You're forgetting Ronald Reagan, likely one of the best presidents in American history-- and that wasn't as long as as you think.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Lillymon]

> You're forgetting Ronald Reagan, likely one of the best
> presidents in American history-- and that wasn't as long as
> as you think.

I... I really don't know how to respond to that. For once, I'm speechless.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Danoz]

I'm a proud conservative and I think you should listen well to what SpaceTiger says. Your "fuck america b/c is sucks" attitude isn't nearly as enlightened as you think it is. Go, be angry, really because nobody cares.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Lillymon]

> > liberals and conservatives can both suck my cock.
>
> As much as I'm sure you'd enjoy that, waving it around like
> this won't make it anymore likely that we'll do it.

<img src=smilies/laff.gif>

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[WhyteKnight]

Oh come on. I have to concur somewhat with Lobster, and there's just about no way you can claim either one is a GOOD candidate.

Now that doesn't mean I'm not going to vote. Some change is better than none at all so we might as well see what a new guy can do.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by WhyteKnight on 10/01/04 02:20 PM.</FONT></P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

okay, then let's play a quick game. ready? go!

Which president, in an attempt to protect America, led a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation? Is it a) George W. Bush (R) b) Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

Which president slammed gay marriages by either proposing, or signing legislation? Was it a) George W. Bush (R) b) Bill Clinton (D)

Which president had an agenda to liberate Iraq, and had legislation to that effect? Was it a) George W. Bush (R) b) Bill Clinton (D)

Which president was in favor of training insurgents to bring down an unfriendly government? Was it a) John F, Kennedy (D) b) Ronald Reagan (R)

and now for our final question....good luck!

Which president supported draconian acts to limit freedoms outlined in previously constructed, long standing national laws? Was it a) George W. Bush (R) b) Bill Clinton (D)


that is why you fail.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[Slicer S. V.]

> that is why you fail.
>
trick questions, you should include C) both in every last one of those :P

yes, i know that was the point, and yes, i'm just tugging your leash a bit... lets see how you react ^^

<P ID="signature"></P>

[IceWolf20]

> > You're forgetting Ronald Reagan, likely one of the best
> > presidents in American history-- and that wasn't as long as
> > as you think.
> I... I really don't know how to respond to that. For once,
> I'm speechless.

And....I'm going to have to agree with you on that one....b/c in reality, the ONLY good thing I can credit Regan with was the ending of the Cold War. Which was a good thing, don't get me wrong, but I'm not going to diefy the guy and cream my pants at the mention of his name.

Because in the end....there's only one president that has ever created more of a deficit and and increased the debt more....and that's our current one.


<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[MooglyGuy]

> You're forgetting Ronald Reagan, likely one of the best
> presidents in American history-- and that wasn't as long as
> as you think.
>


<P ID="signature"></P>

[MooglyGuy]

I love those questions. If I didn't have anything better to do, I'd go and find biased trick questions to match your own, but the fact of the matter is that I have better things to do than watch a whining little child throw a tantrum and hurl toys out of his playpen because people aren't agreeing with his irrational and wholly childish arguments. You're fucking pathetic.

[SpaceTiger]

> Oh come on. I have to concur somewhat with Lobster, and
> there's just about no way you can claim either one is a GOOD
> candidate.

I'm attacking his reasoning, not his conclusions. Neither of them are great candidates in my eyes, but not for the reasons he states. If you want to post a rant in which you actually criticize things that matter, then maybe I'll listen, but I'm not going to agree with this "everything sucks because I don't like the way he looks at me" attitude.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[SpaceTiger]

I'm not saying that it fundamentally matters whether we elect democrats or republicans, I'm saying that it matters who we elect. Historically, the basic stances of the parties have changed over very short timescales and you generally can't assume that a given candidate will have a given point of view based on their party affiliation. There are war hawks, civil rights activists, and even environmentalists in both parties.

> Which president, in an attempt to protect America, led a
> preemptive strike against a sovereign nation? Is it a)
> George W. Bush (R) b) Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

And Kennedy attacked Cuba without provocation, so what? Does that mean that any possible candidate would have done the same?

You don't have to look very far to see that the most recent "preemptive" war was a result of our choice for president. Even Colin Powell (someone who could conceivably have run on the Republican ticket in 2000) was dead set against the Iraq War.


> Which president slammed gay marriages by either proposing,
> or signing legislation? Was it a) George W. Bush (R) b)
> Bill Clinton (D)

If you were watching more closely, you would see that even Kerry is against gay marriage. It's not a popular notion and no major party candidate has dared to support it as yet. Clinton did, however, attempt give gays the right to join the military (something no republican president would have done). He later said that his "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was a compromise he had to make in order to get the bill passed.


> Which president supported draconian acts to limit freedoms
> outlined in previously constructed, long standing national
> laws? Was it a) George W. Bush (R) b) Bill Clinton (D)

That's pretty vague, so I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Nothing that Clinton did even approached the Patriot Act, so I hope you're not trying to make that comparison.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Ernst]

> You're forgetting Ronald Reagan, likely one of the best
> presidents in American history-- and that wasn't as long as
> as you think.
>
I hope that was a joke, sad thing is that I know it wasn't.
Don't forget Nixon by the way. Great man that.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[CEpeep]

> Don't forget Nixon by the way. Great man that.
>

Werd, son. <img src=smilies/laff.gif>

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower</P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

> That's pretty vague, so I'm not sure exactly what you're
> referring to. Nothing that Clinton did even approached the
> Patriot Act, so I hope you're not trying to make that
> comparison.

clinton signed the DMCA into law. as we all know, the DMCA has had far reaching effects as far as personal rights are concerned. it goes far deeper than preventing kiddies from pilfering albums.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

aww, you're so cute when you're a bitter malcontent.

do you honestly think i'm even marginally angry right now at spacetiger? besides, i was merely venting about the candidates, and tiger got on his high ivy league horses and tried to make me look like some unlearned buffoon. he was basically on his hands and knees, screaming for the venom. perhaps he'll think twice before being so condescending. there's a reason i stick to ToTT...people become total dicks in here.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> he was
> basically on his hands and knees, screaming for the venom.
> perhaps he'll think twice before being so condescending.

Yeah, I'm hurting so bad right now. You're such a big man. <img src=smilies/laff.gif>

Seriously, it's attitudes like yours that result in buffoons getting elected. I don't feel in the least bit sorry that I rained on your rant.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Canar]

> i just can't cast a vote for either kerry or bush. does
> anyone realize that every four years, we vote the same exact
> person into office?

Welcome to America, proud home and dominion of the Republicrat party. That phrase pisses a lot of Americans off, but compared to the diversity of Canadian politics, it's true.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href='http://canar.no-ip.com'>http://canar.no-ip.com/teng_title.png
</a>http://www-e.uni-magdeburg.de/drobek/lysergion.zipListen to my DJ mix</a></center></P>

[WhyteKnight]

For people like you and I who live in bubbles, that sort of thing actually matters. For everyone else in the country it IS the way he looks at them. Less than 48 hours afterward they were talking about their body language during the debates more than their contents for christsakes! What I meant was I agree that they both fucking suck. I dont agree with not voting though. The inherent problem with the way our system works, or perhaps the inherent genius, is that its nearly impossible to vote on principle. If everyone voted on principle there'd be scads of candidates, each of which generating a relatively miniscule number of principle based votes. Instead, we have to band together and vote for the guy who sucks less. Yeah he still sucks, but he sucks less (ostensibly) than the other guy, or he hasn't yet proven himself incompetent or whatever. I think its especially important in this election that people put scruples aside to some extent in an effort to forward at least a change or the lack thereof depending on what you think is the way to go, but either way, a vote not cast or a vote not placed for a "big two" candidate is as good as voting for the guy you don't want (Yes. This is defeatist thinking. However, there are more people who are going to take this position and ignore a third party candidate than there are of us who might try to convince them otherwise.) I know its sort of shitty to think about it that way but our system is flawed and will likely stay that way even though it would be enormously simple to fix it (And it would fix the problem mentioned in the previous set of parentheses). So vote to change, or not to change, but for heaven's sake, vote, and cast it in such a manner that it makes an impact (At this point I'm directing this to anyone in general, not Space Tiger).

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

[WhyteKnight]

Fuck's sake children. Both of you have made SOME valid points. I think it bears remembering that ANY post made in this particular forum is essentially flame bait. Is anyone honestly surprised at this point that the majority of these things disintegrate into a shit storm par-for-the-course of vitriol and belligerence? Either way, I see you both saying things that make sense, but its a bit more than just attitudes like his (Or yours. Or mine.) that get dumbshits into office.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> For people like you and I who live in bubbles, that sort of
> thing actually matters. For everyone else in the country it
> IS the way he looks at them. Less than 48 hours afterward
> they were talking about their body language during the
> debates more than their contents for christsakes!

It sounds to me like you're trying to justify shallowness by saying that everybody does it. I don't care if everybody and their grandmother judges primarily on that, it's still not right.


> What I
> meant was I agree that they both fucking suck. I dont agree
> with not voting though. The inherent problem with the way
> our system works, or perhaps the inherent genius, is that
> its nearly impossible to vote on principle.

It's nearly impossible to vote for someone who characterizes everything you believe, but that doesn't mean you can't vote on principle. Simply because I don't agree with everything Kerry says does not mean that it's not principle that made me pick him over Bush. It also doesn't mean I think he sucks. Hell, under normal circumstances, I would say that neither candidate sucks, but I'm gonna have to make an exception for Bush.


> ...a vote not cast or a
> vote not placed for a "big two" candidate is as good as
> voting for the guy you don't want

Agreed.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> but its a bit more than just
> attitudes like his (Or yours. Or mine.) that get dumbshits
> into office.

My statement obviously wasn't meant to imply that his attitude is the only thing that causes problems in our political system, but I have little doubt that it contributes.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[WhyteKnight]

I know that. I didn't mean that you said so. I just meant we're all a little guilty. Its not okay that everybody does it (and this is in reference to your reply to my other post too. My god I'm such a whore for parenthetical statements.), and not specifically everybody does, but a large sum of people contribute to the problem. I don't believe its possible to motivate or educate everyone, which would be nice, and it should certainly be tried, but I think there's a better shot in somehow finding a way to use the system against itself (the parts that suck I mean), or just keeping things changing enough to avoid any catastrophic damage.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/>http://www.girls-tacos.com/whyteknight/button_raven2.jpg</a></center></P>

[Reaper man]

> can anyone here truly get behind kerry as a candidate? as a
> man? he is such an unbelievable douche.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om

/wwwthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

<P ID="signature"><center>
sig not found...</center></P>

[Lenophis]

Well I can give you a good reason <shock> to not vote for Bush...
9/11 - well, we know what happened.
Present day - Bush and his administration is not even trying to seek justice for those responsible for 9/11. How that sits well with anyone is beyond me. How does anyone in this country (US) and even double so in New York even tolerate that? <img src=smilies/headshake.gif>

It's the truth, what do you want me to do about it? Not say/do anything about it?

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

> Present day - Bush and his administration is not even trying
> to seek justice for those responsible for 9/11.

so the war against 9/11 related terrorists in afghanistan (http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/alqaeda.html), and the arrests of high-up al quaeda members (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/03/1046540108358.html?oneclick=true) over the last three years never happened? could you at least fact check A LITTLE before posting? i hate to keep helping danoz's cause, but your ignorance is appalling

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> so the war against 9/11 related terrorists in afghanistan,
> and the arrests of high-up al quaeda members over the last
> three years never happened?

He's probably referring to the Kerry campaign's attempt to characterize the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror. I doubt this is really true, though. If anything, it just distracted us from really rebuilding (and securing) Afghanistan after the war. I certainly wouldn't accuse the Bush administration of lacking fervor in going after terrorists.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> so the war against 9/11 related terrorists in afghanistan,
> and the arrests of high-up al quaeda members over the last
> three years never happened? could you at least fact check A
> LITTLE before posting? i hate to keep helping danoz's
> cause, but your ignorance is appalling

He was probably talking about how Osama bin Laden is still at large and the terrorist attacks al-Queda has made since 9/11 (check your first link).

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[IceWolf20]

> Present day - Bush and his administration is not even trying
> to seek justice for those responsible for 9/11. How that
> sits well with anyone is beyond me. How does anyone in this
> country (US) and even double so in New York even tolerate
> that?

Well....its unfortunate, but about half of the country thinks that that is what is happening. From what I remember, as late as this past summer, something like 45% of Americans belived that Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and terrorism.....even tho the commission completely dismissed that. Too bad Cheany still insists that there was a link, and completely denounces the commission's findings....what a douche.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

so the war against 9/11 related terrorists in afghanistan, and the arrests of high-up al quaeda members over the last three years never happened? could you at least fact check A LITTLE before posting? i hate to keep helping danoz's cause, but your ignorance is appalling

<hr></blockquote>
And could you link a site that doesn't require registration to view content? (Second link) If there have been, then that's news to me. I don't get a chance to watch the news every single night, and I have better things to do than spend the whole day on the internet. But from what I've seen, nothing, nadda, zilch, zero.

But over the last 2 and a half years, I haven't seen or heard anything about going after Al Qaeda.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[ruler26]

> How does anyone in this country (US) and even double so > in New York even tolerate that?
>
> It's the truth, what do you want me to do about it? Not
> say/do anything about it?


Well, here's another truth:

Either Bush or Kerry will win this election. No one else will. Only one of the two. Nader, and who ever the heck the libertarian is will never win in a million years, so they, of course, will not win this election. If you don't vote for Kerry, then that's one less vote to elect someone who can't possibly do worse than Bush, in a race where every vote WILL count.

It's like, honestly, this is NOT the time to be ranting about this "two party" crap. Not this election. If it were Clinton and Dole, then I'd say "Go ahead, and go ahead and vote third party," because I wouldn't feel like the country would die if Dole had been elected.

But with Bush and Kerry, I actually DO feel like the country will die if Bush wins, and here people are whining about this crap when there is a far more pressing issue: getting Bush out of office.

So, put your vote to some actual use and vote Kerry (directed at anyone who isn't a fan of Bush).


<P ID="signature"></P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

if i hear another fucking idiot who says someone's vote is lost because they voted for a third party, i'm gonna go postal.

the ENTIRE point of your vote is to throw your personal support behind the individual you want elected for politcal position. it's a deplorable FUD tactic when some dickwad like you tells me "this isn't the time to be voting for a third party!" why don't you stop propagating this nonsense? let's say i vote the independent ticket. if i vote for nader, that's a vote for NADER. that vote would have NEVER gone to kerry. to presuppose that this vote is somehow the property of john kerry, and i'm costing him the election is pure nonsense.

if some of you want to elect bush, go vote for him! same with kerry! same with ANYONE. if you listen to people who dissuade you to vote for your candidate because you're scared it'll elect someone else, you have no freedom. you voted because someone coerced you, and not because of your own free decision. you might as well go live in china if you're fine with that way of thinking.

you and your ignorant kind should be ashamed of yourselves. anytime you'd like, you may shrivel up and die.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[Lenophis]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

if i hear another fucking idiot who says someone's vote is lost because they voted for a third party, i'm gonna go postal.

the ENTIRE point of your vote is to throw your personal support behind the individual you want elected for politcal position. it's a deplorable FUD tactic when some dickwad like you tells me "this isn't the time to be voting for a third party!" why don't you stop propagating this nonsense? let's say i vote the independent ticket. if i vote for nader, that's a vote for NADER. that vote would have NEVER gone to kerry. to presuppose that this vote is somehow the property of john kerry, and i'm costing him the election is pure nonsense.

if some of you want to elect bush, go vote for him! same with kerry! same with ANYONE. if you listen to people who dissuade you to vote for your candidate because you're scared it'll elect someone else, you have no freedom. you voted because someone coerced you, and not because of your own free decision. you might as well go live in china if you're fine with that way of thinking.

you and your ignorant kind should be ashamed of yourselves. anytime you'd like, you may shrivel up and die.

<hr></blockquote>
<img src=smilies/werd.gif> Can't possibly be put any better.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>

[Lillymon]

You make a strong argument, but you can't make it so people who vote a third party aren't really pissing their vote away. That's simple fact in the American political system.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> if i hear another fucking idiot who says someone's vote is
> lost because they voted for a third party, i'm gonna go
> postal.

I believe that a vote for a third party is only meaningful if the message you send by backing the candidate is stronger than the impact you would have made by choosing the lesser of two evils. Nowhere is it written that a vote should be for the person you agree most with. I, and many other people, believe that a vote should be for the option which you think will do the most good for the country. Sometimes that may be for a third party candidate, but I don't think that's the case this time around.

On the other hand, if you really think the major-party cadidates are equally bad, I don't think there's anything wrong with voting third party.


> the ENTIRE point of your vote is to throw your personal support
> behind the individual you want elected for politcal position.

Not true at all. I suggest you take a look at game theory. It's one of the driving mechanisms behind modern politics.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

> Not true at all. I suggest you take a look at game theory.
> It's one of the driving mechanisms behind modern politics.

i'm familar with game theory, but i'm talking about the principle of voting itself, not how it works within the greater political system. elections are a complex model, but i want to filter it down to a more personal action. most people aren't even aware that they can write in any candidate of their choosing. the problem with our elections is this notion that the choices are very limited, when they're really only limited by your imagination.

is it practical to vote for my dad as president? in the grand scheme, probably not, but i was able to use my voting voice as i saw fit. this is the way elections SHOULD be.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[Lillymon]

> but i want to filter it down to a more personal action.

> this is the way elections SHOULD be.

No one's in disagreement here, but it's still not the way things are. The next election will see Bush and Kerry get around 95% of the votes between them. Change will take much longer and will have to happen on a larger scale than a few isolated voters deciding that they'll go for a third party this time.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> is it practical to vote for my dad as president? in the
> grand scheme, probably not, but i was able to use my voting
> voice as i saw fit. this is the way elections SHOULD be.

It's silly to even talk about such things because life could never really be that way. In a perfect world, we SHOULD be able to live and let live, never attack anyone and they won't attack us. But that's not the real world. If I had the chance, I'd have killed Hitler because it would have been for the better. A simple vote for the lesser of two evils is a far lesser chore.

I think you'll find whatever principle you're standing up for to ultimately be empty. In fact, I suspect it's only an artifact of this fantastical view of democracy in which people actually believe that their vote has some deeper signifigance beyond the cold walls of an apathetic booth.

If it makes you feel better to vote that way, fine, but don't be deluded into thinking it's actually doing anybody any good.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[ruler26]

> you and your ignorant kind should be ashamed of yourselves.
> anytime you'd like, you may shrivel up and die.

And I'm just saying that you might as well not bother voting. Just because you're living and you vote third party doesn't mean that you're going to make any inkling of a stand to ANYONE with your little third party "scream of self-right."

I mean, I never said you couldn't throw your vote away, I was just giving a strong suggestion. You don't seem to want to THINK at all, and you don't want to listen to reason, though, so whatever.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

wow...that was simply depressing

have you no hope at all? i'm totally done arguing with you. at first i thought you had a point, but it turns out you simply have no faith. just be sure to send us a message before you blow yourself away in a gas station bathroom.

optimism can be your friend...give it a shot before it's too late

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> have you no hope at all? i'm totally done arguing with you.
> at first i thought you had a point, but it turns out you
> simply have no faith.

Stop playing rhetorical games, we're not talking about religion here. First I'm myopic, then I'm ignorant, and now I have no hope or faith. What will I be lacking next? Common sense? Ethics? Your rhetoric reminds me of those attack ads Bush and Kerry periodically put out. It even smacks of their characteristic irony, considering that your original post was one of the most cynical diatribes I've ever read. Hope and faith are hardly prominent in the vibe I get from your writing.

If you attach some sort of spiritual signifigance to your vote, then you're right, there is no point in arguing any further. I don't think that you do, though, I think you're just grasping at straws in an attempt to run from the argument. If you really would rather stand up for your principle than do something good for your country (or the world, for that matter), then I don't know what else to say. My biggest hope in this whole game is that people will start listening to reason and do the things that will make all our lives better. You have no idea how many people have asked me why I bother posting on boards like this and whether I actually expect to change anybody's mind about anything. I don't usually answer, but I have trouble seeing how the reasons could be anything other than hope and faith.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lobster Cowboy]

it isn't about religion, it's about caring. for the record, i'm an atheist.

from merriam-webster's 11th collegiate, faith can be:
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction

my ENTIRE point of the original thread was that i was looking for a candidate i could put my faith into by giving them my vote. i was bitching because none of the candidates satisfied that wish. my point has been to extoll the virtues of the individual election voice, and how it DOES matter who you support. it reflects on the vote caster, regardless of the outcome of the vote getter. therein lies the importance of caring about your vote...it goes beyond the ballot box. it's an extension of personal freedom.

it scares me that you hold so little worth to hope. you argue and argue like an old, bitter man, and you're in your mid twenties! re-read some of flash's posts where he puts his hat into the ring for president. that took some conviction, and although on the surface it appeared foolhardy, and in reality, had no chance of succeeding, the man believed in something enough to give it a try. i have more admiration for someone willing to dream big and make some attempt at change, rather than someone who plays by invented rules, and looks at the world as if there are no wonders left to discover. what made you stop caring? you construct arguments as if you're writing a term paper, but like a term paper, they have no anima.

you're so blind it hurts. like the quote in my profile says, "only a fool looks at the finger pointing to the moon." you are that fool, and election statistics, game theory, political FUD, and cynicism is that finger.

i am officially through with you. the sand is looking for you to re-bury your head.

-fin-

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> it isn't about religion, it's about caring. for the record,
> i'm an atheist.

So you're showing your caring for the world by supporting something that will do no good? I'm casting the vote that I think will have do the most good. That is how I show my caring. You're showing it by supporting something which you wish would do good. Even you know it's a fantasy, but you blindly stand by it as the walls go crumbling down around you. Maybe some believe there's dignity in that, but I see it as simple stupidity. You may as well be taking the walls down yourself.


> my ENTIRE point of the original thread was that i was
> looking for a candidate i could put my faith into by giving
> them my vote.

And my entire point is that your vote is about more than who you have faith in. Even if I had faith that Ralph Nader would make a good president, what would I achieve by voting for him? Am I so helpless that the only way I can express my faith is by casting a vote which helps make the world a worse place to live?


> therein lies
> the importance of caring about your vote...it goes beyond
> the ballot box. it's an extension of personal freedom.

That will be especially ironic when your choice aids those who wish to take it away.


> it scares me that you hold so little worth to hope. you
> argue and argue like an old, bitter man, and you're in your
> mid twenties!

My tone is just that, my tone. If you can't separate it from the message, then you're being helplessly dragged around by your emotions. Your arguments are very colorful, but sorely lacking in any kind of reason. It scares me that people are so easily persuaded by this kind of thing.


> re-read some of flash's posts where he puts
> his hat into the ring for president. that took some
> conviction, and although on the surface it appeared
> foolhardy, and in reality, had no chance of succeeding, the
> man believed in something enough to give it a try.

You can show respect and admiration for something without doing damage to its cause.


> i have
> more admiration for someone willing to dream big and make
> some attempt at change

Forgive me for being someone who actually wants his dreams to come true.


> , rather than someone who plays by
> invented rules, and looks at the world as if there are no
> wonders left to discover.

What an idiotic thing to say to an astronomer, seeing that my job is to discover the wonders of the universe. What's this about inventing rules? I'm trying to reason with you and, as far as I can tell, you're the one who's being dogmatic.


> what made you stop caring?

I see that you didn't read my last post.


> you
> construct arguments as if you're writing a term paper, but
> like a term paper, they have no anima.

And like a poem or piece of art, yours have no reason. Pardon me for thinking that's an important thing to consider in politics.


> you're so blind it hurts. like the quote in my profile
> says, "only a fool looks at the finger pointing to the
> moon." you are that fool, and election statistics, game
> theory, political FUD, and cynicism is that finger.

Obviously, you're unable to understand me at all. I have to seriously question the intelligence (or scruples) of someone decides to center an entire argument around an attack on the character of someone they don't even know.


> i am officially through with you. the sand is looking for you to
> re-bury your head.

You are truly a coward, not just because you're running from an argument, but because your position is built on nothing but ad hominem. Posts like yours sometimes win debates, but they're so unethical that it makes me sick.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

if i hear another fucking idiot who says someone's vote is lost because they voted for a third party, i'm gonna go postal.

the ENTIRE point of your vote is to throw your personal support behind the individual you want elected for politcal position. it's a deplorable FUD tactic when some dickwad like you tells me "this isn't the time to be voting for a third party!" why don't you stop propagating this nonsense? let's say i vote the independent ticket. if i vote for nader, that's a vote for NADER. that vote would have NEVER gone to kerry. to presuppose that this vote is somehow the property of john kerry, and i'm costing him the election is pure nonsense.

if some of you want to elect bush, go vote for him! same with kerry! same with ANYONE. if you listen to people who dissuade you to vote for your candidate because you're scared it'll elect someone else, you have no freedom. you voted because someone coerced you, and not because of your own free decision. you might as well go live in china if you're fine with that way of thinking.

you and your ignorant kind should be ashamed of yourselves. anytime you'd like, you may shrivel up and die.

<hr></blockquote>

I don't think anybody is denouncing the fact that somebody supports a 3rd party candidate. Support all the way to the polls-- but ultimately, Nader isn't going to win a single state. It's like betting on a dead horse. In a sense, I agree with you. Frankly, the 2 party system is a joke, but until there's some major reform of our election process-- voting for a 3rd party candidate is a meaningless vote.

edit: Ah, and if somebody votes for Nader, it's generally a vote for Bush-- because conservatives probably won't vote Ralph Nader-- a more liberal moderate may.

<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>