# Improving the gene pool of the American People....



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

"A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/07/ground.zero.suicide.ap/index.html

People, this is insane. Kerry lost, Bush won, and despite what some wish to delude themselves and think, Bush won this election fairly. There are no "hanging chads" or months of recounts here.  He got the popular and the electoral by a wide margin. There were no wide spread "conspiracies" to "rig the vote".  Yes there were some issues, but do you honestly believe there were 3 million worth?

 We have a large number of morons now trying to seek asylum in Canada.  Do any of you really think Canada needs or wants that many whiners? They have their own problems.  High taxes (50%+) are just one.  You people who complain about your 8% sales tax, do you really want to go where they pay almost 20% sales tax? (PST, GST and I believe 1 other in some parts)

 We had Michael Moore and many other celebrities make the statement that if Bush won, they would leave.  Well folks, it is good to know that these "celebs" were people of their word.  Wait, they are all still here?  Can we say "Bandwagon" and "Flip-Flop" boys and girls?  Celebs are in the majority of cases only "speaking out" for the publicity.  They are media and attention whores. "Bash Bush get free publicity."  I'm willing to bet that at least half of them did not even bother to vote this year.

 Bush is gone in 2008. Cheney can't run, he already has 1 foot in the grave. The 2008 race is wide open.  Rather than whine, complain and otherwise masturbate, get off your lazy fat American asses and do something.

  Even if it's just to put shotgun in mouth and remove yourself from the gene pool.

 All I see in here is "whine" "whine" "whine".

 "Bush is the antichrist" - Waah.
 "Kerry lost we're doomed" - Waah.
 "My side didn't even register, I'm so depressed" - Waah.

 Kaith put up his own ideas.  No chance in hell of even 1 vote this year, but he offered some solutions to the problems.  Mark Weiser did the same.  Flatlander pumped both for more details.  a couple other voices chimed in, but that was it.

 Can any of the rest of your whiners do more than complain like cramping old women? Is this forum going to be nothing more than "Bush Bashing" and "Lusting for Kerry" for 4 more years?

 I said this before, I'll say it again.
 -Didn't vote? - STFU until 2008
 - Only voted? - Just quiet you passivist.
 - Got out and got involved? - Cool.  Lets talk.

 If all you can do is complain, whine and long for the "Kerry Wet Dream", shut up.
 It has gotten old.

 Why don't you take an issue (You know, those things the 2 people everyone here seems to be stroking to did not really work on) and come up with a sollution.  Something that can be taken to our elected officials, pushed up the proper chanels and maybe, just maybe put into action?

 Unless we get involved, and forcibly take back our government, they will continue to think and act for us. Like poor little lambs.

 You can either get involved, define the issues, examine the problems, and develop solutions or you can sit around the house in your "Not My President" tee shirts doing the "Washington Shuffle" to your poster of John Kerry.

 You're choice people.

 Let the shirk-fest commence.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 7, 2004)

Hrmmm.... I was unaware that freedom of speech came with conditions. Or, that Bester was the one that establishes said conditions.

Most intriguing.


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

If you did not vote in this last election, or any election you do not deserve that right.

You gave it up. 


If you voted for someone who lost, complain all you want.  You tried.

It is those lazy, worthless slobs who will complain about everything, but do nothing that need to STFU.

Did you vote heretic?
If not, then be quiet sheep.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 7, 2004)

> If you did not vote in this last election, or any election you do not deserve that right.
> 
> You gave it up.



I would be interested as to which part of the constitution includes a subsection about those declining from voting as being unable to exercise their constitutional rights.

Also, apparently those ineligible for voting (such as non-citizens or minors) do not have the right to voice their opinions.

I would also find it interesting to know what governing body gave you authority to execute said law, bester. It would be most intriguing indeed.

And, just to keep the record straight, I did vote.


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

Considering that neither of the 2 major parties cares for the Constitution, except where it suits their own needs I don't see how it applies.

You are right. They don't 
The US Constitution protects US citizens.  Non-citizens are not covered by it. Minors do not have any rights other than those specifically awarded to them. The Constitution does not specify coverage for minors.

The governing body is me. I am part of that "We The People" Kaith keeps blathering about. I am pretty certain others are fed up with the ***** fest as well. 

Good.


----------



## Adept (Nov 7, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> It is those lazy, worthless slobs who will complain about everything, but do nothing that need to STFU.
> 
> Did you vote heretic?
> If not, then be quiet sheep.


 Just so you know, I have reported this post. While I agree with your basic premise, I feel your tone and method of delivery are way out of line.

 I dont believe in limiting the right to free speech of folks, whether they be citizens or not, or whether they voted or not. But I do think that people who failed to vote (assuming they were eligable) should at the least feel very hypocritical when criticising the outcome of the election.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 7, 2004)

We independents and Democrats (and Republicans too) who voted against the President been given an opportunity to rub your face in Bush's idiotic posturing for four more years.  I consider that an upside to this election.  Defending Kerry is no longer an issue or distraction, and we can focus on Bush's gaffes.  Lacking any ability to riposte you'll call it whining, of course.  I'll call it fun.

You now have the keys to power.  You guys have Congress.  You have the White House.  You have the majority of the governorships.  Anything that goes south from here on in is _your_ responsibility and takes place on your watch.  We're going to remind you of that every step of the way.

I for one am going to revel in Bush's malaprops.  I'm going to giggle in sadistic glee as he squirms when dealing with the problems he needlessly created in Mess-o-potamia.  I'm going to give Bush supporters a mocking boo boo lip when they lose their jobs, find their health care inadquate, or find they can't get compensation for injurious negligence on the part of a large corporation.  When a Republican finds funding for their disabled child's education cut or when they complain because science teachers teach creationism, I'll soothingly pat them on the back and say "Hey...take one for the team here.  At least we don't have gays getting married, eh?"

We have *****-slapped you conservatives for the last six months here on MT.  We have provided the weight of evidence against Bush et al and at every turn have out debated you and out reasoned you.  And now we get to do it for an additional 208 weeks.  

Have at thee, Hotspur.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

Adept, you are entitled to your opinion.
However, your opinion if you did not vote, does not count. 
The person who says nothing, deserves nothing.

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."


Steve - I voted Green.  Just for the record.


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

I have posted 4 questions that I see as relevant to the issues and fall out of this past election. We can seek solutions, or we can wallow in self-pity. You can complain that I am rude, or insulting. You can also take a close look at yourself and answer the true questions that I have raised. You do not have to like my wording. You can not escape the truth however deeply one has buried ones head in the sand. See, the "Head in the sand" posture still exposes you to violation.

 I now leave you with a picture of the American Public.  I hope that before 2008, this picture will change.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 7, 2004)

Hrmmm.... what it is that possesses people into thinking they can bark commands as to who can or can not voice an opinion is beyond me. I mean, you can disagree with opinions all you want, but then chirping about how someone doesn't have "the right" to speak that opinion is rather odd, IMO.

Never knew that "univesal rights of mankind" were conditional. Kinda interesting, when you think about it.

Then again, I suppose that's why I voted for Kerry.


----------



## Adept (Nov 7, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> Adept, you are entitled to your opinion.
> However, your opinion if you did not vote, does not count.
> The person who says nothing, deserves nothing.


 Fair call, and if you read my post carefully, you'll see I actually agree with you. But just because someone is a hypocrite (sp?) doesnt mean they dont have a right to voice their opinion. It's as if you were building a community building, and everyone gets a chance to vote on the colour you paint it. After all the votes are counted, the building gets painted blue. Just then someone who has had nothing to do with building or painting it comes along and says "Blue sucks, you should have painted it Cherry".

 Now, his opinion is prefectly valid, but it doesnt change the fact that the building is blue and not cherry, and no-one needs to listen to his opinion. But stopping him from voicing it altogether is not only unfeasable, but childish. 

 The bottom line is; let people *****. It doesnt hurt you, and their words are simply so much hot air on the wind.

 And for the record, I voted (It's compulsory in Australia, where I live) and I voted for the conservative right.


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

They gave up that right when they refused to stand for it.

As to the "univesal rights of mankind", what are they?


There are universal truths, some of them are:


> It's always the musk gland.
> 
> When in doubt, use the phrase, "That'll pass through the digestive tract of a cat, no problem."
> 
> ...


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

People from outside the US can comment since the fallout will in some way effect them.  My complaint is strictly with those within the US, who could have, but didn't vote.  It's not 'who' they voted for, but if they did at all.

The misinformed, lazy, 'know it alls' that didn't vote as a "protest", who now whine that Bush was elected, and then justify it by saying "well, my vote wouldn't have counted anyway".

We have about 200-220 Million eligible voters in the US this year. We had about 120 Million vote.  That leaves about 100 Million people who will be commenting and complaining who really need to shut up.  They had well over a year to register, locate their poling place and do a little reading.  They were allowed, by law, the time off (with pay) to go and vote. This right was bought and paid for by hundreds of thousands of lives over the past 200+ years.  

When people get into the "right to voice their opinion", then suggest that I be punished for doing just that (as the PM I just received was demanding the mods ban me for the initial post here), well, there is some level of hypocrisy going on, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 7, 2004)

> We have a large number of morons now trying to seek asylum in Canada. Do any of you really think Canada needs or wants that many whiners? They have their own problems. High taxes (50%+) are just one. You people who complain about your 8% sales tax, do you really want to go where they pay almost 20% sales tax? (PST, GST and I believe 1 other in some parts


 )

Actually in most provinces sales tax is 14%. My parents combined gross is 105K a year, and they take home about 54k a year. If the American whiners want to come help us out of our deficit please you are definately welcome. Although before you come you might want to aquire a taste for whale blubber, learn how to be a lumberjack, and you aren't allowed to say Zee it is Zed! LOL. 


Oh and by the way, you might want to hurry up, and get good Real Estate for your igloo, it's about that time!

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2004)

*Warning*

Keep the discussion civil.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 7, 2004)

You know Bester, what about someone in my position? I am residing in Canada, and sent away to get my vote. I never recieved my ballot, and in turn didn't get to vote. I am not complaining about the turnout because I support Bush, but if I wanted to, could I complain, or was my freedom of speech revoked because I didn't vote? Just curious on your outlook.



> The governing body is me. I am part of that "We The People" Kaith keeps blathering about. I am pretty certain others are fed up with the ***** fest as well.


Oh and this comment was uncalled for. This forum is used so people can voice their opinion and have intelectual debates. If someone wants to "blather", let them "blather". That is the beauty of this thing called the freedom of speech that you keep talking about.


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

Rynocerous - You tried.  That is different than having done nothing.  The target of my ire here is those that could have stood up and been counted, but did not.

You are right.  This forum is to voice opinion and have intelectual debates.  Unfortunately, all too often it turns into just another "Bash Bush" or "Bash Kerry" thread, and nothing really is accomplished.  Kaith can say what he wants.  I agree and disagree with him.  That is the beauty of it all.  But he, and I while we may disagree, can debate point-counterpoint without resorting to the "just kill them all" comments that a few vocal know-it-alls here resort to when they have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.  I believe Kaith took my "blather" comment the way I intended it, which wasn't in a negative way.

I am just tired of all the complaining without the offering of solutions, and believe others here are as well.

It is like everyone is standing around going "The house is on fire." "Sure is." "Man thats a big fire. Someone should put it out." "Yup, someone should" "Wow that sure is hot."

If you want to fix the problem, people need to stop being passive spectators and start being active initiators.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 7, 2004)

> Originally Posted by Bester
> It is those lazy, worthless slobs who will complain about everything, but do nothing that need to STFU.
> Did you vote heretic?
> If not, then be quiet sheep.





			
				Adept said:
			
		

> Just so you know, I have reported this post. While I agree with your basic premise, I feel your tone and method of delivery are way out of line.


I agree, I didn't vote but I don't think I deserved the kick in the shins because of it... I'll say WOOF not BAA. 



			
				Adept said:
			
		

> I dont believe in limiting the right to free speech of folks, whether they be citizens or not, or whether they voted or not. But I do think that people who failed to vote (assuming they were eligable) should at the least feel very hypocritical when criticising the outcome of the election.





			
				Bester said:
			
		

> Adept, you are entitled to your opinion.
> However, your opinion if you did not vote, does not count.
> The person who says nothing, deserves nothing.


Interesting that you entitle a person to their opinion but only so long as they vote, so long as they follow the herd (Baaa). Thus, taking away their consitutional right to say... nothing. In essence taking away our consitutional (God given) right to be human beings.
Adept is just one guy out of many... including me, that didn't vote this year. They say we don't help the democratic process (this is a republic by the way   )by not voting. Well, uhh, err... does it help by putting either one of the lesser of two evils in office? Better the devil you know than the one you don't? Or the other way around?? :idunno: 
Men that are willing to sling mud at each other in public (and spend millions of dollars doing it) makes me wonder their true motives for wanting to BE in office in the first place. They wanna make this a better country? Well how does defaming and putting down your opponent make you qualified to make this a better country... leaders by example and all stuff...don't cha know?  
Until presidential (and other) candidates in (any) political race start focusing on their strengths and how they feel they can do a good to great job, rather than focus on their opponents' weaknesses... I mean geez the race for the white-house isn't a fight where you look for weaknesses and exploit it. 

My not voting is speaking volumes (in my worthless opinon) by saying I do not approve of either of the candidates. Voting says you do. By not voting I say that neither of the two are esteemed enough in my eyes to be *worthy* to sit behind the desk at the Oval Office. The several dozen million other people who didn't vote seem to think the same way.


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

> Well, uhh, err... does it help by putting either one of the lesser of two evils in office?... By not voting I say that neither of the two are esteemed enough in my eyes to be worthy to sit behind the desk at the Oval Office.



Wow, and here I thought there were more than just 2 people running. I'll bet Earl Dodge didn't know he wasn't really running. You had a choice, you just sat back and justified it by saying "Theres only 2".  A Million! other people thought they had a choice.

Results 2004 Erection
  George W. Bush * (R)	58,978,616 	51% 
  John F. Kerry (D)	55,384,497 	48% 
  Ralph Nader (I)	394,578 	0% 
  Michael Badnarik (Lib.)	377,940 	0% 
  Michael A. Peroutka (CST)	129,842 	0% 
  David Cobb (Green)	105,525 	0% 
  Leonard Peltier (PFP)	21,616 	0% 
  Walter F. Brown (I)	10,258 	0% 
  James Harris (SWP)	6,699 	0% 
  Roger Calero (SWP)	5,274 	0% 
  None of These Candidates (Una.)	3,646 	0% 
  Thomas J. Harens (OTH)	2,395 	0% 
  Bill Van Auken (I)	2,078 	0% 
  Gene Amondson (Lib.)	1,896 	0% 
  John Parker (LU)	1,159 	0% 
  Charles Jay (PCH)	867 	0% 
  Stanford "Andy" E. Andress (Una.)	720 	0% 
  Earl F. Dodge (Phb.)	122 	0%


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2004)

You left me out of the list.
I got 6. 
(and would have died of shock had I really won)


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 7, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> The misinformed, lazy, 'know it alls' that didn't vote as a "protest", who now whine that Bush was elected, and then justify it by saying "well, my vote wouldn't have counted anyway".


And who, on this message board, does this straw-man generalization apply to again?


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 7, 2004)

-Well, I didn't vote. Hate Bush, don't like Kerry, understood that the other candidates didn't have a prayer to get in the office. I'm all for extra parties in the mix, as opposed to just the dems and the publicans, but its not the right time. Right now, its important to take a good look in the mirror, and I've been doing that a lot this year. Everyone needs to take a good look at themselves and evaluate. Time to center yourself and refocus on whats important. (One reason I returned to the MAs) Should the country decide to follow suit, I believe you'll see more people get out to vote, and perhaps support the other political parties. For me, the dems this time around just didn't have it all together. And the next election will prove, if not more important, than just as important as this one. Political parties need to reach out to the nation as a whole, not just those that support them. Majority rules seems often times in contrast to a nation so divided.


A---)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 7, 2004)

Darksoul said:
			
		

> -Well, I didn't vote. Hate Bush, don't like Kerry, understood that the other candidates didn't have a prayer to get in the office. I'm all for extra parties in the mix, as opposed to just the dems and the publicans, but its not the right time. Right now, its important to take a good look in the mirror, and I've been doing that a lot this year. Everyone needs to take a good look at themselves and evaluate. Time to center yourself and refocus on whats important. (One reason I returned to the MAs) Should the country decide to follow suit, I believe you'll see more people get out to vote, and perhaps support the other political parties. For me, the dems this time around just didn't have it all together. And the next election will prove, if not more important, than just as important as this one. Political parties need to reach out to the nation as a whole, not just those that support them. Majority rules seems often times in contrast to a nation so divided.
> 
> 
> A---)




Something like 98% of the people with address (* we all know that the homeless do not count *) have a TV. Not until it is as easy as turning on your TV with a remote, will you get near 90% voting. Why? The apathy in this country and the belief that your vote does not count.

In reality only one vote in each state counts. That is 50 states, add in DC you get 51 votes ** Not sure where Peurto Rico falls could be 52 ** that actually count. All the rest of the votes are just wasted. I mean come on, to win by 1 vote or a million does not matter. Right? So why should I go out and vote, since someone else can cast that single vote. 



 :idunno:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2004)

The 3rd parties will never gain strength if everyone keeps saying "they had no chance" and 'Ill wait til the get bigger'.  If you want them to grow, you have to add your voice to the chorus.  It's why I voted Libertarian.  I knew, as did they that that the chance for succes was slim.  Yet they ran, they donated money, the put foot to pavement and knocked on doors.  The mission is to raise the army.  To expand the ranks.  To add more voices to the mix until they have no choice but to hear us.

The Republican Party was a nobody, a minor player, until a divided nation elected an 11+time loser President in 1860. He didn't have the popular, he didn't have the majority. What Lincoln had was the most votes of all the candidates, but not the popular.  Since then, the Republicans have held on tight to that chance.

Another chance will come, and when it does, a 3rd will hopefully run with it.  It may be the Libertarians, the Greens or even the Socialists.  But if enough people swell their ranks, they can do it.  Even failing to win the election sends a message.  Their platforms planks are constantly being integrated into th major parties own.  

I'm sorry folks, but I agree in spirit with Bester.
If you were an eligable US voter, and you didn't vote, you've got no business complaining about the outcome.  If you couldn't that is different, but if you just sat home and "protested", or continue to insist that there was only 2 choices, then you've missed the whole point of what the Right to Vote is all about.  

It's about making your intent known.

Silence is just that.  Silence. 

"We The People" are the government.
Not George Bush, not John Kerry, nor any of the hundreds of others holding office.
-WE- THE PEOPLE are!

By choosing to remain silent, you have said "We will do what everyone else decides. We have decided not to decide."

Well, Majority of the Speaking People have decided that they, and you by default, wanted George Bush to be The Peoples Voice for the next 4 years.

If you wanted something else, then they should have spoken up when it counted.

I will end with 2 quotes, 1 from song, and one from literature.

"*If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.*" - RUSH

"Dissent without action is consent."  Henry David Thoreau


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2004)

A truth I found on a sales website:

Truth #3: Even when you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice.

For too many of us we just hope things get better. We hope to become healthier, thinner or we hope we earn more. We have wishes and dreams but no commitment or definitiveness to change what we are doing to ensure the desired result. We fail to take action on what we know we need to do now.

Many of us can vacillate over a decision for days, weeks, months or even years. We must realize that by not making a decision we have essentially made a choice. We end up making decisions by default that because we did not decide and act, the decision was made for us.


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 7, 2004)

-I have not once complained about the outcome. I have simply stated that I hate Bush and dislike Kerry and I was aware of other parties and candidates in this election. I'm not here to complain, merely to learn from others and offer my views and suggestions. I also know what my shortcomings are, and work on them everyday. Life is a work in progress, and it takes time to learn somethings. Bester is right concerning lazy Americans, but does he mean everyone of us? Maybe in terms of political activeness, but that may be it. I graduated from highschool and college. Been working security for almost 6 years, often putting in long work weeks. I study kung-fu. I pay my bills. I go out and party at the club, spending most of my time on the dancefloor. 

-My point is this: you cannot force people to see things from another point of view or change their ways. Thats a path of conflict. To be involved in something important like politics, one should really understand what they are doing and why. Many people have come to the realization that participation, regardless of level, is necessary as a citizen. And yet, some may take longer to fully understand that. People rarely change overnight. Some may have to wait till their rights are taken away, for example, before they see the light.


A---)


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

I will be honest, my ire is directed more at people elsewhere than here. I am simply just more than annoyed that everywhere I turn all I can see is the bashing. Too many people can not see past their own narrow viewpoints.

 You're right, I can't force anyone to change, mature, grow, etc.

 But I do not want to wait for them to wake up before MY rights are taken away. Ground lost is too often retaken with high losses. My ancestors paid the price once with the intent that I wouldn't have to pay it again. I simply do not want their sacrifices to have been wasted.

 The moron that took his own life at such a young age, what did he really accomplish? He is just a blur, a footnote now. He could have turned the tide. He could have spoken out, raised issues, promoted a candidate or been one himself. Now, he is biodegradable.

 It is a waste. It could have been so much more.


----------



## Bester (Nov 7, 2004)

Oh, and to the nice person who dinged my rep.....only 276 more points to go before it matters.  :wavey:


----------



## Mark Weiser (Nov 7, 2004)

I did a quick add up of all the votes that did not go to the two main parties. They voted for third party choices. 

1,064,615 people voted against Republican and Democrats. I would be interested if someone could find how many voted for third party choices in the last two elections to see if it is growing?  This number is nearly 1% of the total votes cast. 

I would love to have a great Independent Candiate that would be able to draw votes from both Republican and Democratic choices.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You now have the keys to power. You guys have Congress. You have the White House. You have the majority of the governorships. Anything that goes south from here on in is _your_ responsibility and takes place on your watch. We're going to remind you of that every step of the way.


This viewpoint is where I see trouble. The US/YOU thing. Democrat or Republican we are all Americans. Just because somebody voted for Bush doesn't give him any more "power" or responsibility than somebody who voted for Kerry. If you want change call your representative and work for your cause. Thats how we as "Americans" have a voice. Selecting a President only happens once every 4 years. Being a citizen is 24/7/365.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2004)

Otherwise all this is just.....






Welcome to Democracy.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 7, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Just because somebody voted for Bush doesn't give him any more "power" or responsibility than somebody who voted for Kerry.


It does make them, at least partially, responsible for the actions of their administration.  I mean, after all, it was those votes taht allowed the administration to do what they do.  

I say partially, though, because obviously if the candidate promises one thing (compassionate conservatism, no nation building) and then acts completely different afterward, can that really be faulted to the people who voted based on what they said?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2004)

So what will Bush voters face that Dems. wont? As the whole concept of "you will be responsible" usually implies some sort of "punishment".

And by this standard, are Clinton voters responsible for 9/11 since he failed to actively persue Osama and AlQueda?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 7, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> I did a quick add up of all the votes that did not go to the two main parties. They voted for third party choices.
> 
> 1,064,615 people voted against Republican and Democrats. I would be interested if someone could find how many voted for third party choices in the last two elections to see if it is growing?  This number is nearly 1% of the total votes cast.
> 
> I would love to have a great Independent Candiate that would be able to draw votes from both Republican and Democratic choices.



Well, I have voted in 6 presidential elections. Three times for the major parties, and three times for independants or third parties. Mostly because of the BS and the influence of religion on the two main parties. One is so far one way and the other is made out to be completely on the other side. They have lost my support and lost my respect.  Now if you voted for one of the two major parties, becuase you found that they represented you, on the najor issues that you were concerned about then fine. Good for you. I am glad you voted, for your view point should be represented as well. 

Get people to vote. It is not that hard. I know you have the option to not vote. I ust think you should take you responsibilities seriously as well as many take their rights.  :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 7, 2004)

Tgace:

I don't know if any punishment should be involved.  But lets face it, Bush brought us into an unjustified war based on laughable evidence, and thanks to him, a thousand and counting soldiers are dying in a country they shouldn't be in.  Still, 51% of voters decided he should stay in office, continuing with his current agenda.  They shouldn't be punished for exercizing their basic right, but when you decide to keep the President in office knowing such a history, you are responsible for it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 8, 2004)

Just a clarification here: Bush did NOT bring us here, we allowed ourselves to be brought here.  Without the support of both houses of Congress, Bush can not do much.  It is not fair to blame all the ills of this nation on 1 man, bufoon though he is.
The President only has the powers we, and our voices in Congress give him.  There are checks and balances.  The War in Iraq could not have been launched without the support of Congress.  When you say "George Bush is killing our troops" you really mean "Our Congress and our President are killing our troops."

Check the records and you'll see that Congress has basically allowed these abuses to happen, and "We The People" just gave them bonus points to do it again by reelecting and expanding their control.

We have a Republican President.
We now have I believe a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.  
The people not only rejected John Kerry, but they rejected the Democratic Party by an large amount.   I voted for 2 Libertarians, 1 Democrat and 2 Republicans this year myself.  Why?  Because those candidates were the ones that fit my "wants list".

98% of those voting wanted something different for this country than what I did.
85% of those voting in my local area wanted a different vision for my home.

If you want to make a change, you have to get involved. 
There are 4 years before the next rgime change is available.
In those next 4 years, you have -4- opportunities to change the face of both the House and the Senate.

Do it.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 8, 2004)

1) I do think people should vote and participate, and, ideally, be intelligent and informed

2) Comments like 





> Can any of the rest of your whiners do more than complain like cramping old women?


 are not going to endear what you are saying, Bester, to me, other women, or lots of men.  Name-calling does not help get people involved.  I *was* involved, I *did* volunteer, and my guy lost.  I'm allowed to whinge and moan about the fate of the country I love for a few days without being called a "cramping old woman".

3) Yes, people who voted for Bush are in some way responsible, tgace, although it does not mean that people who voted for Kerry (like me) are not responsible for what happens in the future, too.  The majority of voters who selected our President for the next 4 years had a responsibility - just like all of us.  You cannot select someone and then wash your hands of your choice.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 8, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And by this standard, are Clinton voters responsible for 9/11 since he failed to actively persue Osama and AlQueda?




If you want to start a thread on that, do so.  We can discuss how Bush et al refused to listen to Richard Clarke's exhortations to take Osama seriously.  The attack happened on Bush's watch, so surely you can provide us with some incredibly weighty facts absolving Bush of any responsibility for failing to pick up these folks.

And you can continue to blame Clinton, too.  That always works.  Rumsfeld didn't do it for Abu Ghraib...saying he accepted  responsibility for the event as it occured during his service.  Bad on Rumsfeld.  Perhaps he should have ducked responsibility and pulled out the Clinton excuse as you seem to advocate?  Clinton in his two terms didn't insure the troops were properly trained in prisoner handling and administration?  I've heard this proposed elsewhere as an excuse for the prisoner abuse scandal.

By your reasoning, TGace, we get to blame Bush for things that go wrong well past 2008.  Gee, thanks.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 8, 2004)

Some thoughts here on voter ignorance.


*Voting Without the Facts

By BOB HERBERT*

*Published: November 8, 2004

The so-called values issue, at least as it's being popularly tossed around, is overrated.*

Last week's election was extremely close and a modest shift in any number of factors might have changed the outcome. If the weather had been better in Ohio. ...If the wait to get into the voting booth hadn't been so ungodly long in certain Democratic precincts. ... Or maybe if those younger voters had actually voted. ...

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won. 

The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."

I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.

A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.

If you don't think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.

"Christians, in politics as in evangelism," said Mr. Pastore, "are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology."

Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished." How's that for values?

In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, "Now comes the revolution." He said, "Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.

You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?

What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.

This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.

What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 8, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If you want to start a thread on that, do so.  We can discuss how Bush et al refused to listen to Richard Clarke's exhortations to take Osama seriously.  The attack happened on Bush's watch, so surely you can provide us with some incredibly weighty facts absolving Bush of any responsibility for failing to pick up these folks.
> 
> And you can continue to blame Clinton, too.  That always works.  Rumsfeld didn't do it for Abu Ghraib...saying he accepted  responsibility for the event as it occured during his service.  Bad on Rumsfeld.  Perhaps he should have ducked responsibility and pulled out the Clinton excuse as you seem to advocate?  Clinton in his two terms didn't insure the troops were properly trained in prisoner handling and administration?  I've heard this proposed elsewhere as an excuse for the prisoner abuse scandal.
> 
> ...



Hey, i didnt open the "if you voted for Bush than you are responsible for everything he does that turns out bad" can.....various presidents can take the blame for many ills.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 8, 2004)

Nice article, hardheadjarhead.


----------



## Bester (Nov 8, 2004)

Yes Feisty, you, because you DID vote, have the right to complain about the results and the obligation to work to make those changes you desire.

Complaint without a plan of action and the effort to put it into effect is pointless.
Complaint without having taken action previously is meaningless.

As I have stated clearly on a few occations, my ire is not directed at those who did get involved, and it is not directed at those who will continue to be involved.

It is solely directed at those who did nothing, and now complain about how things turned out.

There were 50-60 million possible voters who did not vote.  Unified, They could have elected any of the third party candidates.  If only 10 million more had lifted their fat, lazy, sheeplike hind ends from their couches and voted for Kerry, Bush would be currently ordering boxes from Uhaul.

There were just as many people who did NOTHING as who voted for either Bush or Kerry.

Those people deserve what they got, what they get, and what they have.

But, I will say it again, since some people do not understand this language I speak.
- If you voted, complain away, brag away, but continue to be involved.
- If you did not vote, shut up and either get involved, or let the rest of us continue to think for you.

The Bushies now have a clean sweep.  Rep. President, House and Senate. If the economy does not improve, if Iraq drags on or escalates, if society continues to disintegrate, who can you blame?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 9, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> As I have stated clearly on a few occations, my ire is not directed at those who did get involved, and it is not directed at those who will continue to be involved.
> 
> It is solely directed at those who did nothing, and now complain about how things turned out.
> 
> ...



Fine.  We're in agreement.  But why do you think any here fall in that category of those who didn't vote?  Peachmonkey worked his butt off for weekis prior to the election.  I was at the polls at 0545 and handing out literature before they opened.  I took an hour break to get aspirin and to vote at my own precinct.

Are you screaming at the wind here or do you have someone in mind when you offer your jeremiad against the apathetic?  I can't think of anyone here that would fall in that category.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bester (Nov 12, 2004)

"Are you screaming at the wind here or do you have someone in mind when you offer your jeremiad against the apathetic?"

Yes.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 12, 2004)

Although there were several non Bush/Kerry canidates for President, they weren't all on everyone's ballot, right? So myabe I want to vote for person X but he's not on my ballot in my precinct. With touch-screens and punch cards I don't believe there's exactly a write-in option.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 12, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Although there were several non Bush/Kerry canidates for President, they weren't all on everyone's ballot, right? So myabe I want to vote for person X but he's not on my ballot in my precinct. With touch-screens and punch cards I don't believe there's exactly a write-in option.



Mr. Badnarik ( Libertarian ) was on all Ballots in All 50 States.

Mr. Nadar was on 30, had a bunch in court, and could have won up to 40 states. As you only need 270, not having 10 ten states that have small electoral votes, would not have hurt him. Given that many of those states were also very deep for one candidate. It might have been an issue of bang for the buck, or return on investment.

Yet, the Libertarian Party spent the money and was on all Ballots, hence the problem with the debates, etcetera.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 12, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> "Are you screaming at the wind here or do you have someone in mind when you offer your jeremiad against the apathetic?"
> 
> Yes.




And those would be, specifically, who among us here?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bester (Nov 12, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And those would be, specifically, who among us here?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


 As I said - Those who did not vote.  I refuse to ID them as I do not wish to get spanked again for picking on folks.  Those ANers are thin skinned enough for me to want to out the traitors publically.  If you must have names, read through the lists and see who indicated they didn't vote, and really had no valid excuse.   (Ballot issues, not eligible, not US Citizens, etc are NOT those I have issue with. Those who worked the campaigns are NOT those I have issue with.)


----------



## Mathusula2 (Nov 12, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance...



I really find it interesting that the Dems are constantly reminding others of their "tolerance"... just so long as they don't have to tolerate a conservative opinion.

Not that other parties aren't hypocritical, it's just that this particular point is so quickly and loudly touted as a positive Democratic belief.

Oh, and for the record, I voted for 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and multiple Independents... so I guess I can have my say...

To Bester: In my experiences, the voices of those who didn't make the effort to vote yet complain are very annoying because they are often the most ignorant.  Just an observation.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 12, 2004)

Mathusula2 said:
			
		

> I really find it interesting that the Dems are constantly reminding others of their "tolerance"... just so long as they don't have to tolerate a conservative opinion.
> 
> Not that other parties aren't hypocritical, it's just that this particular point is so quickly and loudly touted as a positive Democratic belief.



The proper response would probably be something along the lines that its because the typical "conservative" position is usually quite ethnocentric, exclusivistic, and elitist.

Sure, "liberals" have their own elitist rankings, too. Everyone does. Its pretty much human nature at this point to qualify things into hiearchies (i.e., this is "better" than that). Nothing really wrong with that.

Main difference is that "liberals" base their hiearchies on "tolerance" and "non-tolerance". Yup, hypocritical. But, much preferable to the "everyone that is pro-gay is a moral deviant" or "everyone that doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell" or "everyone that believes in socialism is unpatriotic".

Unfortunately, because of their emphasis on "tolerance", liberal-types tend to be much more prone to attacking individuals rather than positions.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Just a clarification here: Bush did NOT bring us here, we allowed ourselves to be brought here.  Without the support of both houses of Congress, Bush can not do much.  It is not fair to blame all the ills of this nation on 1 man, bufoon though he is.
> 
> The President only has the powers we, and our voices in Congress give him.  There are checks and balances.  The War in Iraq could not have been launched without the support of Congress.  When you say "George Bush is killing our troops" you really mean "Our Congress and our President are killing our troops."
> 
> Check the records and you'll see that Congress has basically allowed these abuses to happen, and "We The People" just gave them bonus points to do it again by reelecting and expanding their control.



Not everyone supported this war.  I've voted for Senator Paul Wellstone.  He voted against Iraq.  He died two weeks later...after he was nine points ahead of his Republican challenger.



> Wellstone says no to Iraq resolution
> Rob Hotakainen,  Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent
> October 3, 2002 WELL03
> 
> ...



upnorthkyosa


----------



## TonyM. (Nov 13, 2004)

I voted, but the choices were pretty much what the South Park boys said.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 13, 2004)

HAH! Comedy.


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 15, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> If you did not vote in this last election, or any election you do not deserve that right.
> 
> You gave it up.
> 
> ...


No. 
Learn that when confronted with 2 false choices I can chose not to validate them.
Or would you prefer I shoot you in your arm or your leg?


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 15, 2004)

5 hand swords said:
			
		

> No.
> Learn that when confronted with 2 false choices I can chose not to validate them.
> Or would you prefer I shoot you in your arm or your leg?


_If you did not vote on this last question you do not deserve that right.

You gave it up. 


If you voted for the arm shot like those other losers who lost, complain all you want. You tried.

It is those lazy, worthless slobs who will complain about everything, but do nothing that need to STFU.

Did you vote heretic?
If not, then be quiet sheep._

_By the way the Leg Shot won the vote and so quit complaining and hold still so I can hit you_


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 15, 2004)

Mathusula2 said:
			
		

> I really find it interesting that the Dems are constantly reminding others of their "tolerance"... just so long as they don't have to tolerate a conservative opinion.
> 
> Not that other parties aren't hypocritical, it's just that this particular point is so quickly and loudly touted as a positive Democratic belief.




This is a good point.  I have problems with Democrats/liberals who tout "political correctness," and am open in my opposition to them.  But then, as you note, Republicans do the same thing.  They simply call it something else...like blasphemy or heresy.  

When we speak of toleration, however, we need to understand the meaning of the word.  Hating a behavior or form of speech isn't intolerance.  Taking active steps to suppress that behavior or speech IS intolerance.  Both sides espouse freedom, and then attempt to restrict the freedoms of others.  I would suggest it is a matter of degree.

We've seen the following in the last decade on both Left and Right sides of the issue, listed below.  It is a partial list to be sure, but note I oppose all of them:

*The Left.*

Suppression of "hate speech."    
Legislation of "hate crimes."  
Banning of adult pornography by fringe elements of the feminist Left.  
The restriction of the sale of firearms and accessories.   

*The Right*

Criminalization of sexual behavior among consenting adults both Gay and straight.
Suppression of obscenity.
Banning of adult pornography by elements of the Christian Right (odd allies to the feminists, note).
Criminalization of recreational and medicinal marijuana use.
The banning of marriage or civil unions for a certain segment of society.
The attempt to deny birth control pills to women, even those that are married.
Activism intended to recriminalize adultery.
Efforts to limit the ability of couples to divorce.
Active job discrimination directed at Gays.
Attempts to suppress other religions by the Christian Right.
The active suppression of stem cell research.
The attempts to have "Creationism" taught in public school science classes.
Censorship efforts regarding book availability in public libararies (_Harry Potter, series, The Catcher in the Rye,_ etc).
Active suppression of sex education materials and topics in schools.

Now...we can all say we are intolerant of intolerance.  Or we can say we're intolerant of intolerance of intolerance.  We can carry that on to absurd levels, or we can try and weigh the levels of freedom our toleration/intolerance allows/restricts and place personal responsibility for our actions at the other end of the scale.  

When I do this I find the Right end of the argument woefully lacking.


Regards,



Steve


http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume01/diatribes028/diatribes563-583/diatribes576.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/condom.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_news.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/condom.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2004)

5 hand swords said:
			
		

> No.
> Learn that when confronted with 2 false choices I can chose not to validate them.
> Or would you prefer I shoot you in your arm or your leg?


 Personally, Neither.
 I'd like to write in that you shoot Mickey Mouse. 

 And yes, that was a viable option, to write in a vote for Mickey Mouse.


----------

