Who gives a big ole greasy shit?

[sessiz]

you know, as in bush,pussy, you know?i was not implying something political...it was just a joke. no offense, i thought yall would get it.

Hilarious.

[chrome]

you obviously dont get the joke idiot.... if you would concentrate harder, maybe you would get it

You're now on my shit list. Congratulations.

Later,
Chrome...

[sessiz]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[CaboWabo]

[sessiz]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-28.htm

[Canadian Bit]

...and the summer highs in Toronto 37*.

[mikirgra]

I was tempted to take off to the great white north in 2000. I decided I better stay and fight the good fight. What a moron I am. I live in Texas where my freakin vote didn't even count b/c of that whole electoral college crap. Not only that, but the fascists, I mean republicans, redrew our districts and stole some seat in the house. Do I stay and try to convert bubba, or git the hell outta dodge? Man, it's tough being blue in a red state.

[z-beam]

what happened to all the whites?

electronic voting is pretty suspect. a local australian paper had a little bit to add...

" people where aproached after voting for a quick poll and the results were a decisive 65% in favour of kerry" im not to sure how reliable this dude is but id trust him more than some hackable voting machine. 180 million dollars sure does make for a lot of bribes.

do u.s citizens get to vote if they are overseas at the time of elections?

[payaso]

Yeah, we get to vote from over seas. It's called absentee voting, or some shit, but if you're over seas, stay there cause it's better.....lol





silla

[BilboBaggins]

Time to be the Elder Statesman around here.

Let me start by saying when I first registered to vote in 1982 I was a Republican. In Philadelphia only about 30 percent of the registered voters are of this political party. I changed my registration after I got married and moved into my own house to Independent.

For all you who believe that your vote doesn’t count, you should have lived in the USSR before the fall of communism there. There was only one choice on the ballot and voting was mandatory. At least we have the choice to vote or not to vote and at least 2 choices of candidates for each race, even if that means you have to hold your nose while voting.

The Electoral College was set up as a compromise between our founding fathers that were split between allowing the representatives picking the president and allowing the popular vote to decide. The reason for it is so that the larger states won’t have an even bigger role in deciding the president than they would by popular vote alone. It was really a smart idea.

Now for those who voted for Kerry just because they didn’t like Bush and those who didn’t like Bush but voted for him because they didn’t trust Kerry you could have all choose a independent candidate from the Libertarian or Constitutional Parties, I choose Constitutional myself. These parties both want us to follow the letter of the Constitution not the Living standard that is currently being read into it by the current Justice system. Libertarians also want to legalize Drugs and Void a Constitutional Amendment that was never legally voted as worded as an amendment. I’ll let you find out which one I mean. We really have to educate the voters of America Just because you are a registered member of a political party doesn’t mean you have to vote for the entire party ticket (or any of the party ticket).

We have to educate the Poll Workers. When they ask my wife (who is a registered Libertarian) if that means she can vote either Democrat or Republican there is something wrong here. If they are trying to prevent someone from voting because they are too stupid to flip pages in the book (also happened to my wife the next year) then we have a problem.

For the people who left a polling station in Ohio because somebody jokingly put up a sign that stated “Because of the expected high turnout for this election only Republicans will vote today and Democrat will vote tomorrow (11-3-2004)” maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to vote because of lack of brain cells. But lack of brain cells isn’t a legal reason to exclude people from voting.

For those that are worried about Bush reinstating the draft, Blame Jimmy Carter (a Moderate Democrat who is a better Ex-President than he was in office) who was in the White House when Selective Service Reiteration was started up again. If you are afraid of the possibility of being drafted than write your congressman/senators and have them pass a bill rescinding the selective service law.

Remember Clinton claimed a mandate from the people in 1992 when only getting 40 percent of the total vote. Bush got like 52 percent? But count in the non-voters and he only got 26 percent of total people of voting age. That means Clinton only got 20 percent of the eligible voters in 92 when the turnout was like 51 percent instead of the 60 percent this election.

If you really want change, get involved at the party level. Who knows, maybe you could be elected to office one day.

Read, Think, Vote.
Don’t vote for someone because you are told to, vote for someone who stands for what you do and you believe will do a better job.

Hmmm.
I’m now Old Enough to run for President of the United States.
But could I convince the people I could do a better job running the country than whomever I would have to run against?

[stampede_dude]

all is possible with the ring(that you stole from gollum)

[BilboBaggins]

all is possible with the ring(that you stole from gollum)

But the ring was returned to the fires of mount doom and destroyed.

Frodo is such a good boy.

[lovedoctor]

Excellent post, Bilbo.

I have to concede that you know more about the election process than I do.

But I have to disagree that "3rd party" votes are a viable option. It's not that I wouldn't love to see this country take a fresh start at how it does business.

The problem is that the senate and congress are full of either Democrats or Republicans--both of which hold greater solidarity to their party than to their party's ideals. Bush claims to be a conservative, but how conservative was his request for 85 billion dollars? Sounds like he wants to get LIBERAL with our tax dollars if you ask me. Too bad he isn't as liberal with tax dollars when it comes to social programs and domestic policy.

A 3rd party president would have trouble leading a "traditional" congress because of partisan politics.

The answer is for the US to evolve into a state where issues are voted on, not candidates. We should be able to call a vote on any given day and ask the public:

"Do we want in, or out of, this war?"

"Do we want a comittee to investigate spending by the Executive Branch?"

"Do we want an investigation of the white house for nepotism (i.e., contracts for work in Iraq)?"

Of course, similar mid-term decisions were made before. The impeachment of Nixon for the Watergate Scandal--he wasn't impeached because he dragged out a war we had no business fighting. His actions hurt the Parties, NOT the public.

As well as the impeachment of Clinton--his actions only hurt his familly, himself, and Monica; yet, the republican party thought it their civic duty to remove him from office.

If either party truly had the public's interests at heart, far more criminal actions by elected officials would not go unnoticed.

If we could vote in the manner I have suggested, the will of the people would be adhered to far better than it is now--it is especially more feasible with today's technology.

This assumes, of course, that the voting process couldn't be tampered with (as is likely the case with this last election).

[BilboBaggins]

Personally I'm waiting for Movie Fiction to become fact.

Watch Demolishion Man to find out what I mean on this one.

[BilboBaggins]

Excellent post, Bilbo.

I have to concede that you know more about the election process than I do.

Years of experience, I was born during the Johnson Administration.

But I have to disagree that "3rd party" votes are a viable option. It's not that I wouldn't love to see this country take a fresh start at how it does business.

The problem is that the senate and congress are full of either Democrats or Republicans--both of which hold greater solidarity to their party than to their party's ideals. Bush claims to be a conservative, but how conservative was his request for 85 billion dollars? Sounds like he wants to get LIBERAL with our tax dollars if you ask me. Too bad he isn't as liberal with tax dollars when it comes to social programs and domestic policy.

Jesse dealt with it in Minnesota. There are others running for office in those races too. I happened to like the Republican from Pennsylvania that was running for the senate this year. Close to my beliefs Fiscal Conservative/Moral Moderate. Arnold is the closest to me but he cannot be president.

A 3rd party president would have trouble leading a "traditional" congress because of partisan politics.

Any President can have those problems. He would have to work with them to find a middle ground all can live with.

The answer is for the US to evolve into a state where issues are voted on, not candidates. We should be able to call a vote on any given day and ask the public:

"Do we want in, or out of, this war?"

"Do we want a comittee to investigate spending by the Executive Branch?"

"Do we want an investigation of the white house for nepotism (i.e., contracts for work in Iraq)?"

They do that in California, I feel it may cause more bottleneck if used too much. The reason we elect our representatives is to make these decisions quickly. If you don't like the decisions they made, vote them out.

Of course, similar mid-term decisions were made before. The impeachment of Nixon for the Watergate Scandal--he wasn't impeached because he dragged out a war we had no business fighting. His actions hurt the Parties, NOT the public.

As well as the impeachment of Clinton--his actions only hurt his familly, himself, and Monica; yet, the republican party thought it their civic duty to remove him from office.

If either party truly had the public's interests at heart, far more criminal actions by elected officials would not go unnoticed.

If we could vote in the manner I have suggested, the will of the people would be adhered to far better than it is now--it is especially more feasible with today's technology.

This assumes, of course, that the voting process couldn't be tampered with (as is likely the case with this last election).

Nixon Quit before the articles of impeachment were drafted.

Clinton's actions were detrimental to the country not because is was bopping Monica (FDR, Kennedy did it too) it was he LIED about it to congress. If he admitted it from the start public opinion would have stopped the Articles of Impeachment from being drafted. NOTE: Just because they were drafted doesn't mean he'll get impeached, it just means they will vote to impeach him.

I believe term limits and campaign finance reform would stop some of the abuses of the power that special interests have in the Congress/Senate. The problem is people that seek political office are usually the ones that we shouldn't put into power. Power Corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

We have a Popular Governor in Pennsylvania that I have never voted for. Mainly I don't trust him to do what I feel needs to be done. He is mainly concerned with his legacy and he's only in his first term. This is a man who for most of his adult life has run for public office. I think he would have run for Philadelphia City Dog Catcher if we had that position available. He got his wife appointed to a Federal Judgeship by being friends with Bill and he even was the head of the DNC at one point. I'm afraid he'll run for president. The only good thing about him becoming governor is that he is no longer in Philly every day.[/quote]