Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic » Politics.. sorry about this!

Forum: The Classroom
Topic: Politics.. sorry about this!
started by: aventari

Posted by aventari on Sep. 29 2000,22:30

I have just started following the presidential race, right after I read today that Bush wants to open up oil drilling in a protected natural preserve in Alaska. I can't believe this! I agree gas prices are high, but come on.. There is a better solution that destroying more of the planet than we already have.
[rant mode]
To me it's pretty obvious that he's pandering to the oil companies and that's just wrong in my book. in 200 years when we are using fuel cells for clean power (or something no one yet has thought of) i hope no one looks back in shame and laments about the complete destruction of the environment in the early 2000's just for the last few drops of oil.
It's a limited resource that IS GOING TO RUN OUT. Face the facts-- we must come up with a different cleaner source of power soon, not open up our last oil reserves because poeple are upset about the Ū.00/gallon they're paying to fill up their 40 gallon V-8 SUV.
[/rant mode]
So, sorry for the rant, but that's the reason i'm NOT voting for Bush. I dont think i'll vote for Gore either, he just seems like a wacko moron.

I'm voting for Harry Browne the Libertarian candidate. Even though he won't win, my conscience won't allow me to vote democrat or republican.

Since i haven't been keeping up, is there anything good or bad about Gore we should know about? Who are you voting for?

------------------
aventari
"A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire

Posted by Ozymandias on Sep. 29 2000,22:44

You're voting Libertarian? You're crazy and I don't trust you.

------------------
But where is < Gamera >?

Posted by darksol on Sep. 29 2000,22:51

look, why make a vote that does not count. thats so fucking pointless. I dont care what you vote, but at least make it a vote that matters. Shit man, i know gore is kinda stupid, bush is not altogether reliable, but making a vote that does not count is like not voting at all. So either vote for bush or gore, or dont vote at all.

p.s.
unless you get half the nation to vote for harry brown dont mention voting for him again.

------------------
Whats the point?

Posted by kuru on Sep. 29 2000,23:07

yeah that makes so much sense..... the government protecting all this land for the people of this country....and we can't use it.

a lot of it, we can't even set foot on it. there are millions of acres of land out west that no human being is allowed to be on, because the government has protected it. when it catches on fire due to the fact that loggers can't remove the old, dead trees, it burns for a long time and millions of acres get destroyed because there are no roads that firefighters can use to get inside it and fight the fires...

the government protecting land? that's the biggest load of bullshit i ever heard.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

Posted by jrh1406 on Sep. 29 2000,23:24

I don't care who you vote for, your vote still counts, I personally don't want either candidate to win, Bush is a complete moron, with no leadership skills, and while Gore wouldn't have been a bad choice, his choice of Leiberman for VP killed my vote for him right there, Leiberman likes the idea of censorship alittle too much. Therefor i'm voting for Nader, i don't care if there's no chance of him winning, but atleast i'm not casting my vote for the two worst choices for president in my entire life.

Posted by aventari on Sep. 30 2000,00:25

How can you honestly say it's throwing a vote away? It's not meaningless. at the very least it shows the politicians in office that some of us value freedom enough, and believe in these [Libertarian] ideals enough to vote for a candidate that's not going to win.
When politicians see that this many people take a stand on an issue, they'll be more inclined to go with the flow as it were.

It's sure as hell better than being a sheep blindky led to the slaughter!
(no offense of course )

------------------
aventari
"A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire

Posted by Sithiee on Sep. 30 2000,03:39

what you should do is vote for the candidate who has a chance fo winning who's views most closely go with yours. take the vote test at govote.com, and it lists your similarities with the diff candidates, it said i was a liberal libertarian, and fit me with harry browne. now if i could vote, i wouldnt vote for harry browne, because id be throwing away my vote. id vote for gore, because he has a chance of winning, and i like him better than lieberman.

for all of you who dont know, the VP has almost no real power. the VP is sort of used as a balancing act (i did a short report on this) for example, if people had decided that gore was too conservative (i know hes nto, but follow me here) he would have chosen a much more liberal candidate. however, in order to get the swing votes, he has chosen lieberman for 3 reasons. 1, because it helps him to distance himself from clinton's sex scandals. 2, because he is so much more conservative, he will draw in more moderate voters. 3, because he is jewish, that will attract a lot of votes. the same can be seen with Bush's choice of a candidate. at the time of bush choosing cheney, he was far ahead in the polls, and didnt need a boost, so he decided to go with someone who wouldnt be a burden on him when he got in the white house. cheney is a pretty middle kinda guy, i mean just hearing the name cheney doesnt really bring out anything besides teh idea "running mate". this can be seen back in the 96 election too, dole was losing, so he got kemp to be his running mate, and even though they didnt really like each other, it helped them in the polls, and so it was basically a detail to be worked out later.

the point is choosing a candidate based on a running mate is not a good idea. also, dont throw your vote away, instead use it to strategically get things you want.

Posted by jrh1406 on Sep. 30 2000,04:17

But you see, i'm not throwing my vote away, i'm using it to show how i feel about the candidates, and besides, leibermann has already gotten enough media attention about how he wants to save the children. I don't want him deciding a deadlock censorship bill in congress because he will vote for it. And besides if something happens to gore, i don't want leibermann in office.

Posted by Bozeman on Sep. 30 2000,13:12

(computer, engage rant protocol)
*affirmative, rant protocol now active*

Bandwagon riders...

VOTING FOR THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!

Sorry for shouting. I'm voting Nader, because support of third party candidated will allow their voices to be heard. If a third party manages to get a significant voting chunk in any state, or in the unlikely event that they carry a state, the political system will seriously consider them. A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush! I'll say this right now, Gore will win. Michael Moore stated that America is not stupid enough to let Bush win, and I agree. Of course, those with wavering faith in the intelligence of the average American will be scared of the possibility of a Bush victory.

"Oh no! If Bush wins, Roe v. Wade is history!"

Bush may say he's so super pro-life, but if he overturns Roe v. Wade, he's gone. He will not be re-elected, and whomever replaces him will most probably run their campaign on the fundamental basis of reinstating Roe v. Wade. Outlawing abortion is political suicide. He's DONE if he goes ahead and does that.

Okay, now that I have quelled your Bush fears, I will badmouth Gore for a bit. First off HE'S TIPPER GORE'S FUCKING HUSBAND!!!!!!!!! Sorry again for shouting, but if Tipper has any influence on the president at all, expect to see more warning labels on pretty much everything. Movies, video games, hell, she may even go for BOOKS! If Tipper has the balls of the most powerful man in our country in a salad shooter (so to speak) the country will be sticky with warning label residue. Second, Gore is the bitch of big compaines. (note: Bush is also the corporations' bitch) He will fuck over America, because the ones who got him elected are the stupid people who saw his commercials. Who paid for them? Corporations. Who does Gore owe big time? Corporations.

Nader will not kiss ass to corporations. He is running his campaign on donations by individuals alone. He has no debts to big business. This, in my eyes, makes him a much more valid candidate that the "real" candidates, Bush and Gore.

In conclusion, fuck Bush, fuck Gore, especially fuck Tipper, and GO GREEN!

(computer, disengage rant protocol)
*rant protocol offline*

This message has been edited by Bozeman on September 30, 2000 at 08:14 AM

Posted by BLacK-JEsuS on Sep. 30 2000,15:10

This election is somewhat pathetic... nobody is really in love with either of the candidates, but merely chooses the better of the two.

------------------
Jesus was a black man

Posted by Keeps on Sep. 30 2000,15:20

I think Castro said it best.

"Perhaps never ... have we seen two such boring and insipid characters, devoid of historical endorsement, and solid criteria and principles, as those who today compete for the leadership of the hegemonic superpower." Castro added that Bush and his Democratic rival, Vice President Al Gore, were a pale shadow of the "profound convictions" of Abraham Lincoln, the "wisdom and statesmanship" of Franklin Roosevelt and the "ethics" of Jimmy Carter.

A 'None of the Above' line like in Russia would be a really nice thing to have in this election.

Posted by Bozeman on Sep. 30 2000,18:28

Hmmm, mabey Castro is a smart guy. After all, he maintained a cruel communistic dictatorship this long.

P.S. None of the above is a great idea. If none of the above wins, all new candidates must run. Listen to Jello Biafra for more on the subject.

Posted by Rhydant on Sep. 30 2000,23:36

I didnt read all those post because ive got a head ache, but heres something that might not have been covered:

Gore sorta good, Liberman BAD! he wants to ban ALL violent media including music, movies, and video games. now since all of us liked the matrix (at least i hope) and the majority of us play HL/Counter-Strike/UT/Quake, i'd say were in for it. this year's election is going to suck either way. youve got bush who's anti-gay right, believes that all people that have ben issued the death penelty are guily (some which are not) and has the grammar skills of a 6 year old. then youve got gore, who isnt that bad, but thinks he invented the internet, with his running mate, the jackass liberman. blah. im not 18. screw it.

------------------
[img]http://www.geocities.com/gf_tavern/nothingtofear.jpg[/img]

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 01 2000,16:42

who cares about warning labels?? its a fucking sticker on a box. its not that hard to remove, and if it helps parents parent their children, then thats fine. i mean granted, censorship is bad, but then if a parent bought a cd that turned out to have lots of cussing or somethin, and then completely changed the child, the parent might have a nervous breakdown, because they would have caused it. as long as its just a warning and thats all, just let it be.

Posted by Observer on Oct. 01 2000,18:25

The biggest reason why third-party candidates are not always taken too seriously is that you can still vote straight ticket. That's where you just pull ONE lever that says Democrat or Republican.

Something that is a serious issue among the "third parties" is the right to enter a debate. When Ross Perot ran in '92, he was allowed to debate, and was able to capture 19\% of the vote. 1 out of every 5 voters pulled the little lever marked "Perot".

Now I'm not saying that I'm a Perot supporter, just a bit of a conspiracy theorist. You will notice that he was NOT allowed in the debate the following election run.

I think Bill Hicks put it all into a good perspective (yes I'm a fan, and the words may not be exactly right here):

Candidate#1: "The Puppet on my left does not share my belief that we should help the people in need."

Candidate#2: "The Puppet on my right believes that we should take your hard-earned money and give it to those who are lazy."

[or some such argument]

To which an audience member then shouts, "Hey, it's the same guy holding both Puppets!"

He then says, "Go back to sleep, your government is taking care of everything..."

Interesting summary, isn't it?

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 01 2000,20:20

whiskey, read it again. vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning(by this i mean gore or bush) whos views most closely match yours. browne's views most closely match mine, but he doesnt really have a chance of winning, so id vote gore, because i agree more with him than bush.

the debates work like this (do not argue with me on this, my dad runs them, works for FEC) if you have an average of 15\% of the polls in 5 different polls(i.e. cnn and msnbc and washington post and 7 others) then you get in the nationally sponsored debates. the reason its like that is that if they let every joe, dick, and sally in, thered be so many people in them, that they wouldnt be all that effective. buchanan was whining about it this year (he has about 1\%) and of course he got smacked down. he said 5\% was too high, but really even if they lowered it significantly to like 5\% he still wouldnt be anywhere near getting in. now, i dont know for sure, and i dont feel like looking it up, but i bet if you do, at the time of the debates, (or whenever its decided) perot probably didnt have 5\% of the polls in 96.

edit: i checked my numbers with my dad, and corrected them.

these standards are also all determined in january before any primaries take place, so that they can be objective, and it cant later be that someone says "you cant come, because i dont like you"...etc..

This message has been edited by Sithiee on October 01, 2000 at 04:29 PM

Posted by BLacK-JEsuS on Oct. 01 2000,21:47

The Matrix is rated R in the state of California. Ponder that.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 01 2000,21:52

where is it not rated R??

Posted by Rhydant on Oct. 01 2000,23:58

i dont think its rated R in Alaska. they dont have guns, so they dont get the idea of killing people. now if Neo and Trinity went around harpooning people, thats a different story
:P

------------------

This message has been edited by Rhydant on October 01, 2000 at 06:59 PM

Posted by kuru on Oct. 02 2000,00:21

the whole point in political debates is that every candidate is afforded an equal chance to have his (or her) views heard and question the views of the opponents.

now whatever "their" reasons are for not allowing EVERY joe dick and sally who want to debate do so, they're not good enough. because no matter what, "they" are undermining the principle that the people of this country have the right to make a completely informed choice and vote for the candidate they most agree with. i don't know who "they" are, which body it is that makes the decision of who gets to debate, but by doing so, "they" are in essence deciding who gets elected. by limiting the information people can get about the candidates, the choices those people make are influenced.

yes, debates would take a lot longer and be more difficult if all the people running for office were allowed the right to participate, but in the interest of a truly fair election, that's what should happen. because otherwise, everyone who votes is making a decision based on less than all the facts.

also, i agree with observer that the straight ticket lever should be eliminated. it makes it too easy for someone to apathetically walk up to the voting booth and pull 'democrat' or 'republican' and be done with it. if someone wants to vote straight ticket, they should have to pull each individual lever.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

Posted by jrh1406 on Oct. 02 2000,00:49

I've said it once, and i'll say it again, I don't care what chance of winning my preffered candidate has of winning, but i will vote for him. If everyone just voted for who they wanted instead of whinning about lesser evils and all that bullshit the numbers would come out differently. Most of the people i talk to about Nader all say "Well I would vote for him, but i don't want Bush to win so I'm voting for Gore" or vice-versa. I say fuck that, vote for whomever you beleive in, don't give in to anyone elses bull shit and make your own vote.

Personally I see Bush and Gore as Equally bad, but maybe everyone else doesn't see it this way. It still shouldn't matter. Screw the lesser evil and vote for the person you want to win.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 02 2000,01:46

in the 1824(?) election, there were 4 candidates, 3 of whom included john quincy adams, andrew jackson, and henry clay, the name of the fourth escapes me at the moment. in this election, henry clay siphoned enough votes off of jackson(because they were fairly alike) that no one had a majority of the vote, because people decided to "vote for the candidate they wanted to win" so the vote went to the house, and it was retaken, however clay had the least number of votes, so he was basically eliminated. then something that was called the corrupt deal(? something like that,i should know this) went down. clay told all his supporters to vote for adams, and in return, clay became secretary of state. if he had not done this, its likely that jackson would have won. this is an example of why voting for "who you want to win" can sometimes screw you over. in the next election however, people got smart and voted for jackson.

Posted by mqa on Oct. 02 2000,03:30

why is our country so fucked up? i believe a major contributing factor is the fact that the two major political parties have a strangle-hold on the gov't in this country. as a result, they spend more time arguing about why the other party sucks and trying to raise money, then they do actually trying to improve the country.

here is a fact: both bush and gore are full of shit. they are both increadbly corrupt, and have no intention of keeping half the promises they are currently making.

but because there are enough people out there who are blindly devoted to their party, either bush or gore will win.

however, the purpose of voting is NOT to vote for the person who you think can win. you should vote for the person who most closely matches your views REGARDLESS of their party. by voting for a major party simply because a third party has no chance of winning is a misuse of your vote and is playing directly in to the hands of the major political parties who want nothing more than to stay in power.

a third party will not win this year, however if enough people vote for a third party, others will take notice, support will grow and eventually a third party may become viable.

please note: i am not telling you who to vote for, the above is merely my opinion on the current state of politics. the main purpose of this post however is to state the following:

DO NOT BE DISSUADED FROM VOTING FOR A CANIDATE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT APPEARS THEY WILL NOT WIN.

polls are not accurate, there have been several instances in history where the polls have been grossly wrong. there is a reason the do not release the official tally until all votes are in; it is because they dont want people changing the outcome because their canidate is losing early on.

finally the only way you can "throw your vote away" is by not voting at all. its your country, you should accept nothing but the very best.

i apologize in advance for the unorginized nature of and bad grammar contained in this post. thanks for reading the whole thing for those of you who took the time.

edit: added the following in respose to some points i forgot to include.

sithee: in your previous post you give in example of how "voting for who want to win" can screw you over. the example you give actually shows how "voting for the person someone told you to vote for" can screw you over. the people didnt vote for who they wanted, they voted for who clay told them to vote for. you also mention in a post before that liebermen is jewish, and that will attract alot of votes, however as of 1996 jews made up 2.2\% of the us population. Also i hope people will not vote for him for the sole reason that he is jewish, rather they should vote for him because they believe he will help the country.

jrh1406: i agree completely.

This message has been edited by mqa on October 01, 2000 at 10:53 PM

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 02 2000,05:16

quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
what you should do is vote for the candidate who has a chance fo winning who's views most closely go with yours.

Fuck that. The candidate with views closest to mine probably has no chance in hell of winning. Why bother voting for someone who has no chance when I can strategically use my vote, attempting to place the lesser evil of the two frontrunners into the hot seat?

In other words, I would rather vote for Nader than for Gore or Bush...but what good would that do? My vote would just become a trifiling statistic, getting 5 seconds on a CNN highlight entitled, "the Other American Vote." Heck, I wish it didn't work this way, but it seems like there's no way around it.

Oh, and I think the violence issue goes far beyond adding warning labels to boxes. We have the sticker system now. Gore/Lieberman and Bush/Cheney seem to want take it A LOT farther down the road...

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 02 2000,13:21

ummm....NO. you really arent too bright, are you? in my example, it showed the people voted for who they wanted, and they got screwed. when i said the vote went to teh house, i meant it literally went to the house of representatives. clay told all his supporters in house to vote for adams, many of whom would be likely to vote for jackson otherwise. the people werent told to vote for adams, the representatives were. whether or not the representatives got screwed doesnt matter, the point remains that adams got into office, even though a majority vote taken again probably would have put jackson in the white house.

Posted by hyperponic on Oct. 02 2000,19:13

The whole point of voting for someone who can't win is to prove a point. What do you think the Ruling Party of the United States (read - republicans and democrats) would think if a libertarian got even 5-10\% of the vote? Darn, they might actually have to take those people seriously next time! What good does it do you to just throw away your vote by tossing at some balls-for-brains m0r0n who just happens to have a big party endorsement (unless of course you support the majority of his views)? Think about it this way: if one person's vote means almost nothing, then voting for the person that's not going to get many votes anyway is gonna make your vote count that much more. Nevermind that it might actually say something as opposed to another brainless Rep/Dem nod.

Or we could just keep voting for essentially the same person year after year, and wonder to ourselves why silly things such as the war on (criminalization of) drugs, the abortion debate, and crusades against handguns continue to dominate our politics.

btw, that example is obsolete for this particular election. sorry, bud...

------------------
"It's not peer pressure, its just your turn." - Unknown

This message has been edited by hyperponic on October 02, 2000 at 02:17 PM

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 02 2000,21:20

My vote will most likely go to Bush. Why? Because I fear Al Gore with the intensity of a thousand gallons of adrenaline pumping through my body. I think he has the potential of driving this country into a downward spiral of recession and freedom restriction, so I don't want to see him in office. This is merely of an extension of my beliefs that primarily sit in the conservative camp, but he is a special exception.

While it would be cool to vote Nader or Keyes (although no longer possible), it would be a vote made for political statement. If I want to make a difference in this election and avoid the larger of two evils (in my eyes/heart), then I'm going to vote against him. I don't care about 4 years from now if I believe this guy will have the country nuked in 3 years.

While this all may not be my actual opinion, I just make the point that the candidates help dictate who you vote for: 3 possibilities: your candidate has a good chance of winning: you vote for him. Your candidate has no chance of winning, but you don't care who ends up winning otherwise: vote for your candidate. Your candidate has no chance of winning, but one of the potential winners does not represent your views: vote against the freaky smartyman.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 02 2000,21:25

the libertarians wont get 5-10\% of the vote. many people realize the futility of voting for who they want, so they use their vote wisely. the green party is the lead minority party right now (i think) and nader only has 4\%, and considering the inaccuracy of polls, thats not even guaranteed. looking at polls is dumb. a lot of people lie on them. if there were 2 candidates, and one was white and one was black, the black person is likely to recieve more in the poll than hell actually get, because a lot of people dont want to say theyll vote against a minority. sounds dumb, but it happens. polls dont mean jack. making a political statement with your vote IS A WASTE. if enough of the people who were voting democrat threw away their vote on a political statement, then bush could win, or vise versa. my example with clay still stands, if you make a political statement, you can get fucked.

Posted by Bozeman on Oct. 02 2000,22:35

Urghhhhhh.....

The reason to make a poitical statement is that you hate the current system, and you don't care if you get fucked. Politicians are actually afraid of those independants that actually get 5-10\% of the vote. They think that a strong example might cause this secondary group to actually become a major party. If everyone wasn't so cowardly and brainwashed by the system as to vote for who they thought was BEST, not who they thought was the one who would win. A lesser of two evils approach is the dumbest way to participate in politics.

By the way: "If the majority of the registered voters had their way, who would win? NOBODY!!!!! Nobody! No one would be president! No one would be vice president. No one for governor or even mayor. Congress would be accountable to... nobody." -Jello Biafra, on the apathy of american voters, I blow minds for a living spoken word album. (might not be word for word)

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 02 2000,23:41

For those of you voting for Bush
The state of Texas, under the leadership of George W. Bush, is ranked:
50th in spending for teachers salaries
49th in spending on the environment
48th in per-capita funding for public health
47th in delivery of social services
42nd in child support collections
41st in per-capita spending on public education

and is:
5th in percentage of population living in poverty
1st in air and water pollution
1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance
1st in percentage of children without health insurance
1st in executions (averaging 1 every 2 weeks for the 5 years Bush was governor).

I bet this rich kid moron will make a splendid president after all.

As for my last post: To be honest, despite what I said, I am most likely voting for Nader. In essence, I am willing to make a "statement" with my vote, rather than vote towards one of the two schmucks that will actually win.

When I said I wouldn't "play ball," I was speaking in general terms. For example, I knew a guy who was running for city council in my city. He had absolutely NO CHANCE of winning, so while I wanted to vote for him, I didn't, because there would have been no point. The theme of my last post can be interpreted to apply to all voting situations, but really didn't mean to imply that.

Data provided by Dr. Finnegan, Jr. Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 03 2000,00:45

well the education thing is easily explained, bush wants to give vouchers to everyone in his public schools, and then since the private schools will have an overflow, only the white kids will get in, which is what bush wants. if you tell yourself otherwise, your lying to yourself.

Posted by Observer on Oct. 03 2000,01:11

Here's an interesting "bake your noodle" idea, if everyone who was going to vote for a third party candidate actually did instead of believing it to be "throwing the vote away," wonder how much of a percentage these people would really have? It kinda fits in with the notion earlier about forcing the people into a two-party system.

Hmm...

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

Posted by kuru on Oct. 03 2000,01:25

from United States vs. Emerson

Senior US Circuit Judge William L. Garwood: "Are you saying that the Second Ammendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all of the people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Clinton-Gore Justice Department Attorney William Mejeta: "Yes."

Judge Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

in a statement to Handgun Control Inc. Al Gore stated that he will move for the registration and licensing of all handguns, and ban all "inexpensive" handguns.

i am not usually a single-issue voter, but when one of the candidates wants to try to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights, i'll vote against him every damn time.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

Posted by hair on Oct. 03 2000,02:21

quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
id vote for gore, because he has a chance of winning, and i like him better than lieberman.

I can see you've been following the presidential race quite closely...

People that have no clue what is going on don't deserve to vote in my opinion. Its too bad I'm still too young.

Posted by hair on Oct. 03 2000,02:35

quote:
Originally posted by kuru:
i am not usually a single-issue voter, but when one of the candidates wants to try to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights, i'll vote against him every damn time.

Almost everything I would post is already posted by kuru.

I have no need to be here...

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 03 2000,05:52

MQA and JRH - Your idealistic conception of the voting process is wonderful in theory. However, don't expect it to be implemented into practice anytime soon. Until the bipartisan system of Congress is eradicated, voting for the "lesser evil" will be the norm. Give me some indication that the public is planning to do otherwise (namely, by giving in to voting for whom they really want to) and I'll join that bandwagon. Put a ban on bipartisan politics to a vote and I'll vote for it. But what I won't do, in the words of the immortal Mr. Pink, is play ball.

The reality of the matter is that there are two contenders for the presidency of the US. Vote for one or the other, and you will have contributed towards the next leader of the country. Vote for anyone else, and you will have made a political statement...and nothing more.

And let's not forget that none of us will be voting for the president. We'll be voting to fill the electoral college, who will take care of it for us. Take from this what you will, but I think that point needed to be clarified.

edit: got my names mixed up

This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on October 02, 2000 at 12:53 PM

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 03 2000,08:25

hair, maybe its good your not voting, because youre obviously not too bright. in that entire post i was pointing out how the VP has no real power. i like gore better than i like lieberman. since gore will have the power and lieberman wont, that statement makes sense. and people should be able to vote regardless of how much they know about the election, because thats one of the rights they have from living in this country. elitists like you are really sick little fucks.

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 03 2000,15:31

quote:
Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
[b] For those of you voting for Bush
The state of Texas, under the leadership of George W. Bush, is ranked: [/B]

So, out of curiosity, where was Arkansas on most of these issues back in 1992? Gotta imagine they were borderline amazing statistics too (plus, exciting facts like being 3rd in 1st cousin marriages).

Posted by kuru on Oct. 03 2000,15:36

it's probably harder to find data like that for al gore, considering that though he's "from" tennessee he spent most of his life living in washington d.c.

not that it matters. he's anti-second amendment, so he's not gettin my vote.

------------------
kuru
'put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity.' - albert einstein

Posted by aventari on Oct. 04 2000,01:01

Kuru, that right there is another reason for my Libertarian vote.

As I stated before, Bush and his plan to open up mad oil drilling in Alaska, and his pro-life/anti-choice (however you want to say, it just means anti-abortion) plans for the country, he's completely out in my opinion.. then there's Gore.. now that i've actually been paying attention to the media (for the first time in about 4 years, heh heh) he's for too much censorship and that gun control issue-- he really offends my sensibilities on that one..

I CANT vote for the 'lesser of 2 evils' when they're really the same shit..

Browne in 2000!!

have a nice day

------------------
aventari
"A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire

Posted by Hellraiser on Oct. 04 2000,01:56

As far as I'm concerned, Gore is on the bottom of the list, with Bush little more than a fraction of an inch above him. I've been watching the debates, and neither candidate has that great a future planned for this country. However, I am completely against Gore for these reasons: he has a penchant for lying, and he is against one of the fundamental parts of our country's constitution: the bill of rights. While Bush may not be much better, he'd still get my vote over Gore.

As for voting another ticket, while I agree with the idea of making a political statement, I don't know for sure if I'd vote for Nader. Since I can't vote anyways, it doesn't matter much.

Going from past example, Bush senior was one of the better presidents we've had in the past 50 years, he and Reagan put into motion changes that have definitely benefited the country, and Clinton has taken the credit for some of them. Clinton has been while not the worst president ever, certainly very low on the list, and Gore's stance would seem to indicate he wants to continue Clinton's downward spiral for this country. Probably by the time the next president after this up and coming one is in office, the country will start to see the effects of Clinton's dirty work.

Oh, and by the way, statistics like the ones you pulled on Bush mean virtually nothing; a lot of that has nothing to do with policies set in place by the governer, and much of it has to do a lot more with the region and the mentality of the people than the government. Perhaps we should vote for someone from Montana, or Wyoming, because they both have low levels of polution! Of course, the fact that there are less than a million people in either state may have something to do with it, but we don't want to worry about little details like that which influence the statistics. Statistics are god! I worship the holy calculations, and pay no heed to the little details. /sarcasm

So in general, I'm glad I don't have a vote this year, because the options don't look to promising. So those of you who are voting, enjoy the puppet show! I'm sure the puppet least worthy of office will win... unless we see a miracle.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Posted by hair on Oct. 04 2000,02:36

quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
hair, maybe its good your not voting, because youre obviously not too bright. in that entire post i was pointing out how the VP has no real power. i like gore better than i like lieberman. since gore will have the power and lieberman wont, that statement makes sense. and people should be able to vote regardless of how much they know about the election, because thats one of the rights they have from living in this country. elitists like you are really sick little fucks.

Sithiee,
First of all, that reads to me as if they're running against each other. That apparently is not what you meant. I apologize.

I also agree that this is a right guaranteed to everyone, and that it should never be infringed upon. But, and I'm sure you experienced this as well when you were younger, it can be very annoying when there are people who are old enough to vote that only make a decision based on the cadidates rhetoric.

For example, I was watching the debate tonight, and it pisses me off that people will believe Gore when he blatantly lies about Bush's tax cut plan only favoring the rich. Anyone who looks into an issue such as this will see who is telling the truth. It annoys me, because these changes affect everyone, including minors, and yet even though I have to pay taxes, I don't get fair representation. Remember why we rebelled against Britain's rule?

Just my two cents.

Posted by kuru on Oct. 04 2000,03:09

"no controlling legal authority"

those words were uttered by one of the current presidential candidates, who apparently believes that the executive office is above the law.

would you trust someone who flat out says that nobody could ever prosecute him because nobody has power over the president?

how about if he was vice president? cause the person who said this was al gore, referring to the threat of investigation into a fundraiser held at a buddhist temple in california.

------------------
kuru
'put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity.' - albert einstein

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 04 2000,15:50

If there's one thing I got from the debates, it was to see Gore's face while Bush was talking. Gore sat there smug, laughing under his breath, and generally had a condescending demeaner. Could you imaging this guy trying to be in a negotiation with a foreign leader? He's way too into himself, and I think it showed through.

Posted by jim on Oct. 04 2000,16:12

I totally agree with you askheaves!

Did you hear him sigh into the microphone real loud several times...

What a punk!

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 04 2000,16:22

Jim: I know! I only watched the last half hour of the debates, but what a punk-azz bi-atch!

One of my friends fed me an interesting theory. She wouldn't mind Gore going into office for two reasons.
The first, she said that every president elected on a year ending in 0 (every 20 years) had an assasination attempt. I don't know if I buy it, but as far back as I can think, sounds close (Reagan, Kennedy, FDR?, Lincoln, etc...)
The second, America is poised to take a huge economic tumble. It's not going to be pretty. So, when that happens and Gore is on office, the Republicans will quickly get executive and legislative branches next elections. Yay!

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 04 2000,16:26

Quick little snippit: Leibermann on Daily Radar being interviewed on violent video games: < http://www.dailyradar.com/news/game_news_5142.html >

Nothing real special. He holds his own.

Posted by Hellraiser on Oct. 04 2000,17:53

Okay, if anyone saw the debate tonight and still thinks Al Gory would be a good choice, I think I need to find you and execute you, because you are not worth the air you breathe. What a pack of bullshit! Bush actually didn't do too bad a job tonight, although he had several issues that I disagree with, and was less than tactful at skirting certain issues. After the debate, they have a bunch of people reviewing it, and in the show of hands, only 3 or 4 people thought Gore won, and almost all the rest thought Bush won (the debate). Only about 2-3 people were undecided. The biggest point Bush had was that Al Gore was attacking using "fuzzy" logic and math, which is very true. Gore also lied several times, especially when quoting Bush's plans, something he has done before. Apparently, neither candidate was fully up to date with their own plans.

Anyways, it's all a show, and the strings are very apparent.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 04 2000,18:09

Gore's main tactic in any debate environment is to push his opponent to the brink, by stretching the truth, manipulating the facts, and basically driving people crazy. I thought this was strongly evident when he went up against Quayle (not exactly a hard target). But while Quayle gave in and exploded (if I remember, it was when they were talking about poor families) Bush Jr. never did. And that is why I think he was successful.

Did anyone notice Gore's facial expressions? They got considerably more contorted as Bush kept his composure. Gore kept trying to bring out the worst in the governor, but Bush kept on reiterating himself while speaking very rationally. Gore seemed to lose his patience, hence the sighs, smug gestures, and impatience with his failing tactic. So basically, I think Bush clobbered Gore in this respect.

However, to ignore the statistics on Bush's gubernatorial reign is simply foolish. The governor oversees the people who focus on all of the issues listed in the data I posted, from pollution to executions to health care and beyond. In addition, Bush has been the governor of Texas for over 5 years, in which he has appointed more than one justice to the Texas Supreme Court bench. So, not only does Bush influence the state of affairs and legislation in Texas, but also the judicial construction that subsequently follows.

Due to last night's debate, and my newfound disgust for the Gore/Lieberman political agenda, I think I'm leaning towards Bush (between the two frontrunners). However, I think Gore will still win the election.

I think the majority of American people are wary to hand the reins over to the Republicans after the last 8 years. People seem to be afraid they will be ditching the recent "golden economy" and the current state of the union by voting Republican. But that's just my opinion.

This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on October 04, 2000 at 01:12 PM

Posted by hair on Oct. 04 2000,19:12

quote:
Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
I think the majority of American people are wary to hand the reins over to the Republicans after the last 8 years. People seem to be afraid they will be ditching the recent "golden economy" and the current state of the union by voting Republican. But that's just my opinion.

I agree that that is what people think, but every bill has to be passed by a Republican controlled House. For some reason, everyone gives credit to Clinton. And, of course, he just loves to recieve it.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 04 2000,20:54

personally, i still think bush is a moron. plain and simple. gore has problems, i admit, but i still think he is far better than bush. if you take into account that the president does not have absolute power, and that he wont be able to kill the 2nd ammendment, and lieberman wont be able to censor everything, hes not that bad. bush is a moron. people say he did well at the debate, because republicans have been pointing out what a dumbass he is when it comes to debating for so long that when he managed not to have a complete breakdown, people were amazed. its like daria said (i dont have the exact quote) "if you condition people to expect nothing, the slightest something gets everyone excited" so bush managed to stay alive, that doesnt mean jack. during the 80s, the republicans did not do anything to help the economy, and clinton and gore's "fuzzy math" is what pulled the economy out of the shithole and has gotten our budget up, gotten a surplus, and started decreasing the national debt. thats a good thing. yes, gore may hide behind numbers, but at least he understands them! in my opinion, bush is still just a dumbass, and it scares me shitless what would happen if he won the election. keep in mind that the winner will be appointing at least 2 and up to 4 justices to the supreme court...

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 04 2000,21:15

I would rather have a dumbass in office than somebody as dangerous as Gore. At least Bush has the ability to choose good advisors. That was the strongest part of the 12 year Republican regime: they picked very smart people to be around them, then they listened to them.
I don't give any credit to Clinton in turning our economy around. Heard of Reaganomics and Trickle Down Economics? These are terms that describe the series of very calculated decisions made by the former administration to put us in a good state. They kind of knew that it would put the country in a slight slump, but predicted that we would come out of it. Thus, the recession that lasted Bush's years, then the boon during Clinton's years. Notice how the economy really started taking off about 3 days into Clinton's presidency?
What complicates things is that the Republicans took a risk when implementing the programs they did. It was only by our incredible technology and ingenuity that America came out so well. It was a gamble that payed off.
So, if you want to give any credit to the government of the last 8 years for our economy, give that credit to Alan Greenspan (the smartest economist in the world).

I want Bush in office because his ineptitude will humble him. He will listen to Dick Cheney. He will listen to his advisors. Gore is a malicious evil bastard and has been living in that house for 8 years. The only person he will listen to is his wife (also very evil... christ, her name is Tipper ).

Posted by kuru on Oct. 04 2000,21:56

if you look at the government's own webpages, and i can't remember the exact link offhand but i remember it being from either the fed or the treasury department, the united states has been in economic growth for around fourteen years, except for a brief (less than 1 year) recession in 1992. clinton can hardly take credit for things that started in 1986.

------------------
kuru
'put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity.' - albert einstein

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 04 2000,23:24

actually, you didnt do your homework, the recession was in 91, not 92, so maybe you should start looking these things up from nonpartison sources (not teh gov) before you spout it.

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 04 2000,23:46

quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
during the 80s, the republicans did not do anything to help the economy, and clinton and gore's "fuzzy math" is what pulled the economy out of the shithole and has gotten our budget up, gotten a surplus, and started decreasing the national debt

I would be hesitant to attribute any one of the things you listed to Gore. The economic boom is the doing of Clinton, Alan Greenspan, and the presidential advisors.

But then again, Gore "took the initiative in creating the Internet," so perhaps I'm wrong!

Posted by kuru on Oct. 04 2000,23:46

so i was a year off, the important point is that clinton's trying to take credit for prosperity that started before he even took office.

not that it matters, everything out of gore's mouth sounds to me exactly like 'no controlling legal authority.'

------------------
kuru
'put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity.' - albert einstein

Posted by Bozeman on Oct. 05 2000,01:18

I see a lot of slams on both Bush and Gore. (both of who's financial backers are frighteningly similar) The only real negative against Nader so far is that he has no chance. The question is: if everyone who hated both sides but felt Nader didn't have a chance actually voted for Nader, would he have a chance? The answer is a resounding YES. I am currently at MSU campus in East Lansing Michgan, right near the capitol building, occupied by Gov. John Engler. Anyone from Michigan will tell you Engler is a huge Repuplican. We recently saw Nader speak, and a good portion of the population was in atendance. Lansing and East Lansing are conservative, but we had a whole lot of support. Add to this those who support the cause, but couldn't or didn't attend, and you have (estimating) 8-12\% of the voters of the local area. If all of these people stood up and fought the system, rather than getting scared and choosing the lesser of two evils, third party candidates would be considered legitimate. However, most people get horror stories for one side or the other, proclaiming what will happen if the other wins. "Gore is against family values!" "Bush will overturn Roe v. Wade!" Don't let fear sway you! Don't be fooled by glossed over images! Do research, be true to your convictions, and your vote will count more than you or anyone expected it to. Remember, when Jello Biafra ran for mayor of San Francisco, he only got 4\%, and politicians were in an uproar. 4\% is a lot in political terms. Just think of the uproar if everyone voted their concience, not their fears.

Posted by Rhydant on Oct. 05 2000,01:37

wtf? how the hell id good ol george get elected then? maybe its because he passed that law sawing that people could carry concieled hand guns? :P~

------------------
[img]http://www.geocities.com/gf_tavern/nothingtofear.jpg[/img]

Posted by Mahdimael on Oct. 05 2000,03:28

In my opinion, vote for who you think should lead. That's important. But I don't think it's enough, necessarily. If you really want change, you need to work for it. Here in SD, there was a protest in favor of Nader being in the debates. I think it would make a much bigger difference if a thousand or more people showed up there, and maybe in cities all around the nation.
Unfortunately, the laws won't change until we get third party cantidates in office, which won't happen until the laws change. Vicious circle.

------------------
I never let my schooling get in the way of my education - Mark Twain

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 05 2000,17:14

Yeah, but Nader's not exactly a saint, either. The treehuggers can be a bit too left-wing at times.

Take for example the incident at the J-Soc training base at Fort Bragg. The special operations command is in multiple orientation field training, and the tree-huggin' groundskeeper finds out that a endangered fern is growing at the base. All operations stop until new situational training programs are designed. Portions of training require unnecessary silence and rerouting to avoid the fern patches. This was supported by ultra-left legislators.

Sometimes, the Green party goes too far. In other words, sometimes it's better to move the proverbial fern than cause a frickin disastrous uproar.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 05 2000,18:30

yeah, i dont really like treehuggers. the environment is fine. people complain about the ozone layer. one blast from a volcano releases more chcs than all of human civilization ever has. nature is not a fragile ball of glass, its a ball of rubber. when you drop glass it breaks. nature wont break. when you drop the rubber ball, it gets compressed, and if you didnt know better you think its was permanently stuck, but if you wait, youd find out that it just goes right back to normal. nature will be fine, if anything we need protection from it, not vise versa. and although roe v. wade is kind of a big deal for me, it honestly just frightens me having someone as dumb as bush in the white house. just for clarification, bush is not a real texan. half my family is from texas (thats a whole lot) and not one of them is anythin like bush, and none of them are so dumb. i honestly have yet to meet a texan as dumb as bush, hes not a good representation.

Posted by Mahdimael on Oct. 06 2000,02:09

I'm a semi-treehugger, but I won't get offended. Actually, I agree that nature is pretty resilient. Even so, I'm much more interested in being able to go to a forest than a new Gap store or Starbucks. Preservation is cool and all, but sometimes more has to be done, and it should be if it's technologically possible. Like how today's cars are like 90\% cleaner than ones from the 70's. If not for some laws, carmakers would just install the cheapest parts.

------------------
I never let my schooling get in the way of my education - Mark Twain

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 06 2000,04:02

I'm extremely conservative, but I understand the importance of not frucking up our world too badly. Background: I went to an Environmental high school my senior year, and now my job is to design a system that identifies which cars on the road are causing the most pollution, and sending them a letter informing them that they need to fix their car, or suffer the penalty.

In terms of drilling in the national forest... I believe in nationalism up the wazoo. I think we should buy oil as long as we can, and not really produce much here... then, when the rest of the world gets short on oil, we're sitting on it. And the oil reserve thing... dumb. I think we should be able to survive when the rest of the world runs out of gas. We Americans are such bastards... maybe we'll share with Canada

Posted by kuru on Oct. 06 2000,14:51

until a war starts in the country you used to get oil from, and then due to the fact that you never developed your own resources, you're fucked. it takes a lot of time to set up oil rigs and pipelines, and by then, this other country who holds all the oil you normally need to survive as brought you to your knees.

also, what the fuck good is setting aside land for the people if the people can't use it? the federal gov't currently owns 1/3 of all the land in the united states, and they keep buying more and more of it. so places that used to be just fine for drilling or logging no longer are, because the government wants to protect it from the people who've been living on it and taking care of it for the last couple hundred years. it's all just bullshit, really, because people and corporations are generally smart enough not to destroy the thing that makes them money.

though it does make me wonder, what do they /really/ want with all this land? because it sure as fuck ain't habitats for owls.

------------------
kuru
'put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity.' - albert einstein

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 06 2000,17:22

quote:
Originally posted by askheaves:
In terms of drilling in the national forest... I believe in nationalism up the wazoo. I think we should buy oil as long as we can, and not really produce much here... then, when the rest of the world gets short on oil, we're sitting on it.

I agree. Not from a nationalistic viewpoint, but rather from a strategic one.

But then again, that is a pretty harsh strategy. Other countries are desperate for trade and the resulting profits to feed, clothe, maintainance, and arm their feeble nations. To force them to sell their oil only to exploit them in the future is a pretty dirty tactic...a low blow, if you will.

But I guess that's why we're on top. Mark the other side's cards before the game starts, and use sheer economic and military advantages to make sure everything develops according to plan. Brilliant. Devilish, but brilliant.

Posted by Observer on Oct. 06 2000,23:06

quote:
Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
...in Alaska...in AL).

Alaska is AK FYI. AL is Alabama. Refer to Jeff Foxworthy's routine about the space program having a base there...

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

Posted by whiskey@throttle on Oct. 07 2000,05:13

Land=power. Especially when there are natuaral resources on such land.

The US definitely has the means to use ALL of the oil in Alaska (transported via a massive pipeline...which is a very hot military target, hence the large amount of special readiness troops in AL). Combined with the Texas oil reserves, we're sitting on a tub of black gold.

I think the US still fights wars for foreign oil because the government will go to any length to keep our resources pristine, whether from a environmental or a selfish viewpoint.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 12 2000,08:38

hate to bring this back, but i felt the need to point this out after the debate last night. people (who i dont feel like naming, but you know who you are) have been bashing gore for being anti-2nd ammendment. but last night in the debate, it was bush who said something along the lines of (i dont feel like finding the exact quote out of a transcript) "if you are caught carrying a gun, we will detain you." first, note the language used there, caught. being caught exercising the 2nd ammendment. second, gore may want people to register, and have to wait longer for their guns and such, but if you are using it legally, then why the fuck should you care? i think the critic made a good point in the episode where jay was kidnapped. when the australian dude went to the gun vending machine, its just like "are you a criminal" and he pressed no, and got the gun. theres a little truth in everything....

Posted by kuru on Oct. 12 2000,15:13

because, al gore, i shouldn't be detained for doing something that's completely LEGAL and protected as my constitutional right. i shouldn't be forced to feel like a criminal every time i take my gun out of my house for any reason.

and by the way, the word "caught" implies that the person who was caught was doing something WRONG. carrying a gun, at least here, is something i have the LEGAL RIGHT to do. i went through the background checks (two of them to purchase, and two more to get a concealed carry permit) and my handgun IS registered by serial number as belonging to ME.

so fuck al gore. he doesn't want registration, that already happens. i already have to carry photo id to prove that i have the right to exercise my constitutional right to bear arms. he wants to continue to levy more and more restrictions until it becomes too difficult to exercise your rights that people just don't do it anymore. it's called the death by a thousand slices. he can't do it all at once, so he'll chip away at it piece by piece until he gets what sarah fucking brady wants.

</rant>

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 12 2000,16:20

quote:
Originally posted by kuru:
i shouldn't be forced to feel like a criminal every time i take my gun out of my house for any reason.
so fuck al gore

Yay!!! I love you, Kuru! I don't own a gun right now because I'm sort of scared to buy one. I understand the concept of keeping guns out of criminal's hands, but I don'w want to go through background checks (totally clean) and registration and photo IDs and all this stuff. I have a firearm safety certificate, I have been hunting birds since I was 14, and I have no intent of taking it into an airport terminal or a 7 god damn 11. Why does the government need to know that I own a gun?
Do people really think they can keep guns out of the hands of bad people? Why would I want to own a gun in the first place? Probably because I'm scared of criminals with guns. If it gets harder for the honest citizan to get a gun, then we all become easy pickings for bad people.
so, fuck you gore. If any of you gun owners happen to be in Milwaukee right now, apparantly he's talking right now in Cathedral Square downtown (across the street from the school I went to). I advocate nothing.

Posted by Bozeman on Oct. 12 2000,20:50

Gore may suck ass, but Bush does that and more. The sensible choice? Nader. Sure he won't win, I'm not saying he will. It's a protest vote. The bigger Nader's support, the more likely the greens will be taken seriously in the next elections. Also, if the greens carry a state (unlikely) then the two party system will be devastated, and a more diverse choice of candidates will come out for the next elections. Then you will not have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 12 2000,21:08

Nader wont carry a state. he has right now i think about 4\% of the vote (anyone wanna look it up?). in 92, perot had 19\% of the popular vote, and yet he carried no electoral votes, so the parties took no notice. and yknow what? i like the two party system...i dont give a fuck how exclusive it is, i think it works fine.

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 12 2000,21:14

I believe, from what knowledge i have, that Bush is the lesser of 5 evils. That's why I'm voting for him. Gore frightens the hell out of me, Nader is a bit out in left field, Tim Brown sounds reasonable, but he's a little quirky, and Buchanen scared the life out of me when he was running while I was 8. He still does. I refuse to vote as a protest against a two party system. I think the two party system has been a bit of a failing, leaving us with unexciting elections and candidates that are far from ideal. I'm not prepared to throw away a good economy, good times, etc on a fringe candidate.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 12 2000,22:23

umm....gore is more likely to keep things as they are, considering bush keeps going on about how hes from texas where they do things different (and according to the reports, pretty shittily) so hes not gonna keep things as they are...so if you like the way things are you ought to vote for gore.

Posted by Bozeman on Oct. 12 2000,22:54

Good point Sithiee, but I'm still protesting, and I encourage others to do the same. Also, that 4\% is a figure from exit polls which may not be all that accurate. Also, 4\% is actually a LOT from the poitician's POV.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 12 2000,23:54

its down to 2...heh, sorry, but i found out today...

Posted by mqa on Oct. 13 2000,02:57

my problem with nader is that he is for gun control. bush lost my vote when he said "there ought to be limits to freedom". also what good is a "good economy" when children are killing people in the streets?

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 13 2000,15:20

quote:
Originally posted by mqa:
my problem with nader is that he is for gun control. bush lost my vote when he said "there ought to be limits to freedom". also what good is a "good economy" when children are killing people in the streets?

Limits to freedom: that really is a given. Go all the way back to the social contract. We give up some freedom for a level of security. Nobody can be faulted on a basic level. When people want to start taking about going too far with taking freedoms, then I take issue.

BTW: Sithee... what did you mean down to 2? I'll go check the news right now...

Posted by aventari on Oct. 13 2000,16:36

You're definately right, there should be limits to freedom, and thank god there are. (we all know the 'fire!' in a crowded theatre example)
BUT when someone like Bush(or most anyone from the republican party) says it, it has a much more sinister ring to it.

------------------
aventari
"sooooo.. do you like...stuff?"

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 13 2000,20:29

Interesting article linked in a slashdot post: < http://www.nationalreview.com/gorelies/gorelies.shtml >
It's a good listing of some of the debunked lies that Gore has told in the last 15 years. Note: most of them are from the last 2 years.

Posted by askheaves on Oct. 14 2000,05:33

quote:
Originally posted by aventari:
You're definately right, there should be limits to freedom, and thank god there are. (we all know the 'fire!' in a crowded theatre example)
BUT when someone like Bush(or most anyone from the republican party) says it, it has a much more sinister ring to it.

I disagree. Placing your freedom in the hands of republicans/ conservatives is better than in the hands of DemocRATS/ liberals. One of the foundations of a conservative belief is that of less government (especially on a federal level), and more power to the people. Liberals tend to believe in monolithic governments (Leviathon anyone?)
When a liberal says they want to take some freedom away (although it will never be those words), that's when to run scared because they don't have much trust in the people to take care of themselves.

Edit: Sorry, I'm inept at everything

This message has been edited by askheaves on October 13, 2000 at 01:11 PM

Posted by mqa on Oct. 15 2000,04:44

i acknowledge that there needs to be limits to freedom in order to have a productive society, but when mr. bush made that comment he was responding to the fact that someone had bought gwbush.com and was using it to make fun of him. just because someone is teasing you doesn't mean you need to restrict speech. same goes for all this political correctness bullshit... but thats for another thread.

as for trusting either democrats or republicans with your freedoms, i trust neither. why? because the communications decency act, which is a blatant violation of the first amendment, passed with only 19 (?) opposing votes (one of those votes was sen. liebermans btw...). luckly it was struck down by a federal court (i think).

edit: spelling

This message has been edited by mqa on October 15, 2000 at 02:06 PM

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 15 2000,16:45

are you also against rules that require you to go out into public wearing decent clothes? or do you want to see every shriveled up old person and every super fat person naked on the streets near your home? the point of censorship is to help you not see things you dont want to see, not always to prevent you from seeing everything. at least thats how i view it...im probably the only one...

Posted by mqa on Oct. 15 2000,19:04

did you even read my post?

Posted by Hex0r on Oct. 15 2000,22:09

public decency laws arent censorship, well not really, there is a time and a place for everything, and its called college.

that and at the beginning someone was going off on forest fires not getting battled cause no one was aloud in there, well guess what, forest fires are natural, they clear out the old and make way for the new alot better than loggers ever could.

and neither candidate is any good, hell none of em are in my oppinion, but anything they promise has to go through two other layers of legislation before it gets passed and THEN if it does get through the ACLU will tear it apart (try to take my guns away, damn em all!!!)

well thats what i have to say about politics, in a perfect world politicians would represent their voters well, on penalty of death. when they get voted out there'd be one last vote to see if they did good muhahahahahahaha, i tell ya what, there'd be alot more responsible politicians out there!

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 16 2000,00:00

dude, you are a dumbass. there is no possible way for a politician to represent all the people completely. there are always two sides to every issue, and a politician has to take a side to do something, and so they cant represent everyone. as the saying goes "you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time." thats just how it is. if youre lucky enough to have all of your views represented, then you truly are lucky, but tahts all there is to it.

Posted by Bozeman on Oct. 16 2000,00:20

The quote is "fool," not "please" some of the people, etc. But what you say has merit. No one man (or woman for you PC friendly folks) can represent all of a country. But democracy only works of someone can represent most of your ideals. If you choose one who only kinda fits, because he has a good chance of winning, that can only lead to a slow decline. Let's play "what if." What if the greens detract enough from the dems to let W. into the white house? Well, due to the fact that George Jr. is a mongrel idiot, he will fuck up the country, and come next election the masses, pissed at their idiot of a commander in chief, will elect someone who will actually get the job done. Another what if, what if Gore gets in, then fucks it up even worse than Bush would? Again, the mistakes of that administration would prevent it from continuing. Someone with better ideas would step forward. Ralph Nader is stepping forward now. The "main" candidates have less than stellar political records, but Nader has helped pass more laws than some people sitting in congress now. Don't vote for a bandwagon candidate because you are afraid of the opposition. If everyone voted their concience rather than choose the lesser of two evils, we probably wouldn't bitch about how D.C. is so corrupt and full of idiots all the time.

Another note: many people who might have voted green are not counted because they are so sick of the crappy system that they do not vote. There's democracy: the losers win because they disgust the winner's support.

Posted by Sithiee on Oct. 16 2000,01:41

fact: libertarian harry browne is on more ballots than green ralph nader. green ralph nader is higher in the polls than libertarian harry browne. hows that for equal representation?

just thought id point that out, and thanks for that fix there, i meant it the way i said anyway...

Posted by Hex0r on Oct. 16 2000,02:37

ok my crack about killing politians who didnt represent their people well enough was from my ass, off the top of my head at the time, but there should be some accountability for teh shit heads who promise us the world and give us shit. Something to force them to be a little more honest, no, not honest, but just do a better job in the eyes of the voters.

as for the other parties, i dunno, i see myself as amost a-political, just trying to figure out the lesser of the two evils, and right now im bending towards GWB.