# Why should I vote for...



## someguy (May 17, 2004)

I'm really not sure who to vote for in the presidentail election.
So convince me to vote for who ever you are voting for or not for who ever.  
For that matter I'm kind of tempted not to vote.  You can try to convince me of that.  
This mainly applies to Americans but I wouldn't mind people from outside the U.S.s opinions here.  Maybe get a view from outside.


----------



## michaeledward (May 17, 2004)

In two weeks, we celebrate Memorial Day; a rememberance of all those who have served and have died in their service to this country. You can show your respect for the 1.5 million Americans who have died in conflicts, great and small, by voting to preserve that which they were fighting for.

*Vote!* 

It is not just a privilege. It is a responsibility. 

As to whom you should cast your vote, well, that is another matter entirely. One of the beauties of our system of voting, is that you are not required to prove the value of your vote with knowledge, property or wealth. Citizens, 18 years of age or older, can walk into the polling place and mark off the ballot having not prepared to vote in any way. Other citizens, can spend hours reading on the candidates positions, visiting with the candidates, working for the candidates, and walk into the polling place on election day to cast a vote. 

Both of these citizens' votes carry exactly the same weight in deteriming the course of our government. The one who studied, and carefully reviewed the choices is no more correct than the one who marked off the ballot in alphebetical order. Isn't that cool. Yeah ... it's a bit scary too, but cool.

So,  you don't need to learn anything. You don't need to prepare. Just be sure to get to the polling place, and cast your vote.

Mike


----------



## someguy (May 17, 2004)

Vote even though I don't really follow things to closely?
Vote for the sake of voting basically.
Eh sure why not.  But who should I vote for.  I'm wanting you guys to give me evidence for whch one is better.  Well sort of more like I'm really just curious in who wants to vote for whom and why.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 17, 2004)

Hmmm...let's see...

We were told we were going to war because of weapons of mass destruction.  That was a lie.  So instead we were told we went to war to "liberate" people, and to spread democracy.  That was clearly a lie, because now we're occupiers and torturers.  Brave American men and women are dying in this war, but we're not allowed to see it, because it's supposed to be a secret.  Our president didn't even show up for his National Guard Duty, and none of his associates went to war, but they have the unmitigated gall to trash his opponent, a decorated war hero. Neither our president nor Sec'y of Defense reads the newspaper, and our president takes more vacation in a year than I've done in my lifetime.  Hardly anyone in the administration will testify under oath, and our president can't testify at all without his Vice President speaking for him. We're spending more on "security" in Iraq than in our own country, and about 1/3 of the $87 billion you and I shelled out is going to private companies like VP Cheney's Halliburton. In only 3 years, we went from prosperity and surplus to the largest deficit this country has ever seen, and our grandchildren will probably still be paying for it.  Despite the fact that we took over an oil producing nation, regular gas is now $2.17/gallon.  Milk has increased in price, and ice cream has nearly doubled.  The president created a "No Child Left Behind" education policy which he now refuses to fund.  Interest rates are inching up, inflation is creeping in, foreign policy is an abject disaster, our domestic economy is in the toilet, and the whole world hates us.

Diebold, whose corporate president told the world he's "looking forward to delivering the votes to the President in November," is going to sell us some new electronic voting machines that a 13 year old could hack. I think I'll vote for Kerry, but with those new Diebold voting machines, it may not even matter.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2004)

Hmm.... You are in Georgia....thats a Southern state, bit conservative, except for all those damnyankees that have moved in around Atlanta....historically its been a democratic state.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ has a bit of info on each candidate, their positions on verious issues and well groomed photos.

The 15 minute primer on 'who to vote for' is to spend 15 minutes looking through there and selecting the person who most seems to meet your desires.

The 1 minute primer is to pick a party and vote straight party line.

Or, you can do what they did last time around in Florida and hang Chad.  (Don't though...he's a nice guy...really.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Diebold, whose corporate president told the world he's "looking forward to delivering the votes to the President in November," is going to sell us some new electronic voting machines that a 13 year old could hack. I think I'll vote for Kerry, but with those new Diebold voting machines, it may not even matter.


*Indian EVM compared with Diebold*

*More interesting reading*


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 17, 2004)

BTW, Someguy, your profile indicates that you are 19 years old, which means this may be THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION YOU EVER VOTE IN.  This administration has committed generational rape.  It is YOU who will be paying for the financial debacle this administration has caused.  I'll be gone.  I urge you to learn the facts, and to vote.


----------



## michaeledward (May 17, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Vote even though I don't really follow things to closely?


Yes!


			
				someguy said:
			
		

> Vote for the sake of voting basically.


Yes!



			
				someguy said:
			
		

> Eh sure why not. But who should I vote for. I'm wanting you guys to give me evidence for whch one is better. Well sort of more like I'm really just curious in who wants to vote for whom and why.


If you look at my posts on this board, you will see that I supported Dennis Kucinich in the primaries. I did this for a variety of reasons. But this is irrelevant. I will support president Bush if he wins the election (Bush is about as far away from Kucinich as you can get). 

But what would really be wonderful, is a voter turnout in the 80%. It really doesn't matter who you vote for ... Just Show Up!.

A Black Belt is a White Belt that kept showing up!.

VOTE!

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 17, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Vote even though I don't really follow things to closely?
> Vote for the sake of voting basically.
> .


This is great advice, acting responsible is the first step to being responsible. Now, that being said, be resposible and vote for Kerry :asian: .
Sean


----------



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

Hmm interesting has any one defended Bush here at all.  I won't defend or attack him at the moment.
btw I have been registered to vote for a while now and I'm planning on voting one way already.  
So is there any one running under the platform of make someguy absolute dictator of the world shortly after they gain control of the white house?  I'd vote for them.


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Hmm interesting has any one defended Bush here at all. I won't defend or attack him at the moment.
> btw I have been registered to vote for a while now and I'm planning on voting one way already.
> So is there any one running under the platform of make someguy absolute dictator of the world shortly after they gain control of the white house? I'd vote for them.


Follow the link for an interesting story about 'defending Bush'.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000507940

Generally, however, throughout history Dictators have been a bad idea. 

Please exercise your right to vote, by exercising your privilege to vote; and be sure to use a paper ballot.

Mike


----------



## xianshino (May 19, 2004)

Here is an easy way to vote if you really have no clue.
ask yourself this question:
Who would Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and members of al-qaida vote for? 
They would all vote for John Kerry.

Put some thought into that and see what it tells you....


----------



## OUMoose (May 19, 2004)

Actually I think they would vote for Bush.  Look at it this way:

Osama:  "Well, they've spent all this time and still can't find me, so I don't want some new guy coming in and trying something new!"

Saddam:  "Crap... Still in Jail...  Well, if I'm gonna sit here and rot, I might as well take the US with me..."

Al-Qaida:  "Terror?  Mayhem?  Bedlam?  The Bush administration is just giving us fuel for the fire, and scaring their own people more than we ever could... Viva la Bush!!"

Yes, that was sarcasm, but in seriousness, I do hope John Kerry makes it to office.  It's been proven that we need some new blood in the driver's seat.


----------



## xianshino (May 19, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Actually I think they would vote for Bush. Look at it this way:
> 
> Osama: "Well, they've spent all this time and still can't find me, so I don't want some new guy coming in and trying something new!"
> 
> ...


 
That is really sad. It's awful that people are so deadset on blaming the current administration for everything and wanting a new president just for fresh blood in the office? 

Zell Miller is a DEMOCRAT from the state I live in (Georgia)
Please read what he had to say just 2 days ago:

Attached are remarks by Senator Zell Miller to Bush-Cheney grassrootsleaders on Saturday in Columbus, Georgia. I thought you might find these of interest. Thanks for all you do for our President.







*U.S. Senator Zell Miller

Bush-Cheney 04 Leadership Meeting

Columbus, Georgia
May 15, 2004
Remarks Prepared for Delivery



Im still amazed when I get such a warm welcome from Republican audiences. And very pleased. 



Im afraid that my old Democratic "ties that bind" have become unraveled. But thats all right. For in my heart and in my head, I know Im doing the right thing. 



I know where I am going and I know why I am going there. 



I know we have a strong Commander-in-Chief, guided by the right principles and I know that my family and the people of this nation are more secure with George W. Bush in the White House.



So, I am honored to stand squarely with President Bush and with you at this defining moment in our history.



When the President came to office, the economy was already taking a turn for the worse. 



Job growth was slowing down. The stock markets were moving in the wrong direction. Strong medicine was needed. 



The first dose was a tax relief plan designed to jump start our economy by getting money out of Washington and into the pockets of the workers and the small business owners who earned it.



I was proud to be a co-sponsor of those tax relief plans which lowered the tax bills for 111 million taxpayers  including 25 million small business owners.



People have been using it to pay the bills or get the kids some new clothes or start a little savings plan for themselves.



Small businesses are investing in new equipment and expanding their operations. As a result, our economy is on the upswing.



Weve had ten consecutive quarters of economic growth. And in the last three quarters the economy has been stronger than any three consecutive quarters in nearly 20 years.

Jobs are coming back, too. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created since August, and more are on the way. 



Manufacturing activity is picking up and the business community is more confident because they feel this turn-around taking root.



George W. Bush has done an outstanding job shepherding our economy through tough times. 



The Presidents leadership faced its greatest test on September 11, 2001.



For years, terrorists had been killing Americans and striking at American interests around the world. Each and every attack was met with a totally inadequate response.



Is it any wonder that the terrorists thought America would never fight back? For years we had been sending them an engraved invitation to attack us. RSVP not required. Finally  and unfortunately  they accepted. 



America was blessed that George W. Bush was leading America exactly when we most needed a steel spine in the White House.



He immediately took the fight to the terrorists, cleared out their base of operations in Afghanistan and toppled one of their biggest fans in Iraq.



The President recognized that at a time when terrorists are growing bolder, we had to change the way the government fights the terrorist threat.



He supported and signed the USA Patriot Act, which broke down the walls the previous administration had put up between federal agencies to share critical information. 



He created the Homeland Security Department, the modern day equivalent of the national security reorganization that President Truman undertook at the beginning of the Cold War. 



It was not easy. Even after terrorists had attacked our nation and killed our citizens, my democratic colleagues seemed more concerned about protecting old union rules than giving the President the flexibility to respond to a national emergency. 



I signed on immediately, but every other Senator on my side of the aisle had the opposite view on it. For eleven votes  112 days  I was the lone Democrat to stand with the President. 



The other Democrats, including Senator John Kerry, stalled it for four long months - at a critical moment for Americas security. 



But President Bush hung tough and finally, after the 2002 election, he won approval of the Homeland Security Department. 



Thats what this race will come down to on November 2: Which candidate has the consistency, the steady resolve, and the firm conviction to lead America in a time of war.



I have served in Washington with both President Bush and Senator John Kerry for several years and I know them both pretty well. 



With John Kerry on national security, its vacillate, retreat and turn over to the U.N. With John Kerry on domestic policy, its tax, spend and redistribute income. 



In his first 100 days in office, John Kerrys massive health care plan would force him to raise taxes by as much as $900 billion dollars. 



This economic recovery has been spurred on by lower taxes. Kerrys higher taxes would stifle economic growth and take money out of peoples pockets. 



There once was a candidate who said he wanted "to feel your pain." Now, weve got a candidate who wants to "steal your gain." 



We dont need tax laws that keep changing and have a perishable date on them like a quart of milk. The tax cuts should be permanent.



Im old enough to remember when both Democrats and Republicans did what was necessary to keep America safe and the world free. 



It was a strong bipartisan commitment. Back then, it was said about national security that partisanship stopped at the waters edge. No more.



Todays National Democratic Party led by Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the other Protestors-of-the-60's-grown-long-in-the-tooth dont believe America is a liberating force. 



Instead, they see America as an occupier, some kind of Darth Vader military empire trying to colonize people. 



They believe any nation that would ally themselves with America is, as John Kerry has put it, part of "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Thats disgraceful. 



As this man speaks down to us mere mortals from his lofty perch, his voice roars with the force of the late George C. Scott ... using the words of Michael C. Moore. 



Yes, what Lieutenant John Kerry did in Vietnam is to be praised and we should thank him for it. But not his shameful record on National Defense as a U.S. senator. 



When he came to the Senate almost 20 years ago, his first great foreign policy cause was the "nuclear freeze," challenging Sam Nunn over the funding of research into missile defense, which, of course, Kerry wanted to cut.



It only got worse. Much worse. Senator Kerry went on to vote against every single major weapons system that won the Cold War.



He voted to cut or de-fund the B-1 bomber, the B-2, the F-15, and F-14A, the F-14D...the Apache helicopter, the Harrier jet, the Patriot missile...the Aegis air-defense cruiser, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the Trident Missile. 



This man now wants to be the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what, spitballs?



Senator Kerry has made it clear that he believes U.S. military force should only be used as approved by the United Nations. 



This man who says hes against outsourcing wants to outsource our foreign policy  the most dangerous outsourcing of all.



**This man wants to be the leader of the free world. Free for how long?



This man is so out of touch with the average American it would be comical if it were not so dangerous. 



His high-priced handlers know it and are frantically trying to get him down on ground level instead of levitating above Planet Earth, as he has for so many years. 



But, they are out of touch themselves. 



Remember when they told Al Gore to wear earth tones? Same media bunch. Now theyve got Kerry wearing a canvas hunting coat with a pink power tie. Have you ever seen that kind of garb anywhere on Main Street, U.S.A.?



Last week they pushed this most liberal of all the U.S. senators in front of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. Speaking in tongues, he claimed hes really been a moderate all these years. 

Whats next? Talladega? The Grand Ole Opry? Sopping syrup with a cathead biscuit? In a pink tie?



Look, John Kerry couldnt find Main Street with both hands. You cant make a chicken swim and you cant make John Kerry anything but an out-of-touch, ultra-liberal from Taxachusetts. 



In this election, Im on George Bushs side because hes on the side of* *freedom and the side of the American people. 



May God bless our President, and may God bless America.

*


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> Here is an easy way to vote if you really have no clue.
> ask yourself this question:
> Who would Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and members of al-qaida vote for?
> They would all vote for John Kerry.
> ...


Seldom when entering a polling place, should you consider what someone else would do. You are entitled to one vote, you should use it to reflect your values.

And of course, you should also consider a wide range of policy decisions that a new administration will be required to review. Seldom should you cast your vote based on a single topic.

Some topics to consider when deciding for whom to cast your vote:

The Economy - What is your opinion of 'Globalism' as compared to  'Protectionism'? Has 'Free Trade' helped or hurt the US and International Economies in general, and you and your family in particular?
The Environment - What is your opinion of the countries responsibility to future generations? Should we work preserve the animal and plant species in our country or develop the natural resources to best drive our econmic engine?
The Legal System - Should we base our system of 'Corrections' on 'Punishment' or on 'Rehabilitation'? Where should we draw the line between civil liberty, personal responsibility, and protecting society?
The Social System - Should we be responsible for those 'without a voice' in our society (children do not have the right to vote)? Should we be responsible, as a society, for the elders in our community, as they have created the society in which we all live?
The Health System - One fifth of the US population lives without private insurance. This places a burden on the remaining 4/5ths. What is the best way to address this imbalance? Is it societies responsibility to address this imbalance? Do we need to concern ourselves, as a country, with the health concerns (and dangers) overseas (SARS - the African AIDS situation)
The Military - What is the purpose of the United States military? Can the US Military, in its current configuration meet those purposes?
Civil Liberties & Rights - Do we, as a society, have a resonsibility to immigrants? Do we have a responsibility to the workers in our society? Do animals have rights and need protection? Do the disable require equal protection under the law? Is 'Affirmative Action' still a viable policy or is the country suitably 'color blind'?
Do not vote for the person you think Osama bin Laden would fear most (ignoring the argument that bin Laden is not a citizen and therefore is not entitled to vote for anyone). And I would suggest that you do consider carefully, and skeptically, the opinion of anyone who makes that the primary purpose for whom you should vote.

But most of all .... *VOTE !*

Mike


----------



## xianshino (May 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Seldom when entering a polling place, should you consider what someone else would do. You are entitled to one vote, you should use it to reflect your values.
> 
> And of course, you should also consider a wide range of policy decisions that a new administration will be required to review. Seldom should you cast your vote based on a single topic.
> 
> ...


Nowhere on this list is International Security or Foreign Policy!!!
Where were you people on 9-11-2001 ?  
Thank God we had a man in office with backbone to take the fight to the terrorists.
I'm not going to say anymore on this subject because I'm sure the poster who originated it probably just wanted to start a flame war but i disagree with Mike, if you're not sure who to vote for then DON'T VOTE! Don't vote just to be voting, that's about the dumbest thing i've heard of.

Cheers!
And God bless America


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> Nowhere on this list is International Security or Foreign Policy!!!


Traditionally, International Security and Foreign Policy play a very small, or non-existant part of the process of selecting the United States President. But, my post listed 'SOME' of the things to consider, and was not intended to be a comprehensive list. Also, my post was partially a rebuttal to your one topic post.



			
				xianshino said:
			
		

> Where were you people on 9-11-2001 ?


I was across the river from Manhattan, in New Jersey, watcing the towers collapse.



			
				xianshino said:
			
		

> Thank God we had a man in office with backbone to take the fight to the terrorists.


Although the President might disagree with me, I think 'God' had very little to do with who is serving in office. And, this argument is a bit odd, as there is only one President at a time. To argue about the actions of some other man, when what those actions might be, is unknowable, isn't it? It does make you wonder just who is 'Wagging the Dog'.



			
				xianshino said:
			
		

> I'm not going to say anymore on this subject because I'm sure the poster who originated it probably just wanted to start a flame war but i disagree with Mike, if you're not sure who to vote for then DON'T VOTE! Don't vote just to be voting, that's about the dumbest thing i've heard of.


The United States history is replete with elections in which one vote made all the difference. And while being prepared is certainly better than not being prepared, preparation is not a requirement for casting a vote. The lesson of history is that *you* can make a difference.

Or, as the band Rush once put it .... ~ ~ "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" ~ ~

Most importantly .... *VOTE!*

Mike



			
				xianshino said:
			
		

> And God bless America


As an athiest, I would really prefer if she doesn't.


----------



## xianshino (May 19, 2004)

lol....ok ok, you got me with the Rush "Freewill"  quote.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 19, 2004)

You should vote. I'm always appaled at the low turn out. I believe that if you don't vote, then you have no right to criticize. I am in favor a mandatory voting, like in Australia. I'm also in favor of ballots having a 'none the above' box.


----------



## xianshino (May 19, 2004)

Well, In that case I guess you could just vote for Geddy Lee.  
artyon:


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> lol....ok ok, you got me with the Rush "Freewill" quote.


Have you ever noticed the lyrics as Neil Peart wrote them are:

"if you choose not to decide, you *can not* have made a choice"

At least, that is how I recall seeing the lyrics on the liner notes of the album. I am so glad that when the actually recorded the song, they made the change they did.

Mike


----------



## Spud (May 19, 2004)

One major question; is Georgia a contested state or is it a given that your states electoral votes are already going to Kerry or Bush? Unless Georgia is up for grabs, then your vote for a Bush or Kerry is meaningless exercise in futility.

Im not fond of either candidate and Idahos electoral votes will go to Bush hence my vote is null. I figure the strongest message I can send is with a third party candidate. Im leaning towards Nolan (Libertarian). 

Assuming that Georgia is contested then I would urge you to put some serious thought into the issues. Ignore the shallow campaign ads and keep up on current events (beyond headline news). 

Good Luck.

18 states to determine 2004 election


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2004)

xianshino said:
			
		

> Nowhere on this list is International Security or Foreign Policy!!!
> Where were you people on 9-11-2001 ?
> Thank God we had a man in office with backbone to take the fight to the terrorists.
> I'm not going to say anymore on this subject because I'm sure the poster who originated it probably just wanted to start a flame war but i disagree with Mike, if you're not sure who to vote for then DON'T VOTE! Don't vote just to be voting, that's about the dumbest thing i've heard of.
> ...


Yeah just stay home, unless of course you think the military and legal system are our national security; then, I guess it would be OK.  :asian: 
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2004)

Spud said:
			
		

> One major question; is Georgia a contested state or is it a given that your states electoral votes are already going to Kerry or Bush? Unless Georgia is up for grabs, then your vote for a Bush or Kerry is meaningless exercise in futility.
> 
> Im not fond of either candidate and Idahos electoral votes will go to Bush hence my vote is null. I figure the strongest message I can send is with a third party candidate. Im leaning towards Nolan (Libertarian).
> 
> ...


As a brief introduction into the 'Electoral College' nature of our Presidential election system, your statements should be considered seriously. But, I would be wary of placing any state, and its electors with any specific party. The map was very red in 1972. (Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts). I suggest that one should vote for whomever best matches their opinions on the issues. I don't think any vote is a meaningless exercise in futility. The 'parties' are watching and counting every vote to determine their platforms.

Also, seldom is the ballot only for a single race. The November ballot will also contain races for 435 congressmen, 33 (or 34) senators, countless local officials, and quite probably several 'ballot initiatives'. So, most importantly:

*VOTE!*

Mike

P.S. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Spud (May 19, 2004)

Who would Bin Ladin vote for? Consider this: After 9/11 the entire world showed enormous goodwill and support for the people of the United States and outrage against Al Qeuda.

Under Bush, the US was response was predictable - invade the Middle East. Afghanistan was a first step, that riled up the hard cores in the region, and solidified Bin Ladins followers. Bin Ladin and his cronies kept up the rumblings that the US was only in the region for oil and power, wait a little. Boom, the US hits oil-rich Iraq and Bin Ladins prophecies come true. US support deteriorates worldwide, Iraq is in chaos, hes got plenty of volunteers ready to go into Iraq and Afghanistan plus develop additional cells in Europe. Keep waiting for the Uncle Same to trip up (prisoner abuse scandal for one), reap the benefits of recruiting.

For many, the US has gone from beloved beacon of democracy suffering an unwarranted attacked by cowards to arrogant super power using unchecked military powers. Based on the current track record, I dont think Bin Ladin would be too nervous about four more years of the current administration.


----------



## someguy (May 19, 2004)

Ok first I was not intending to start a flame war although I was intending to start a debate.  I guess it really does look like that and I must say again it wasn't at all my intent to start a flame war.
Next isn't Zell Miller the guy who heads the democrats for Bush or what ever it is.  Maybe another person, I'm not really sre.  Actually thats probably some one else so probably this comment makes me look like a fool.
Now as to Bush I am beginning to see him as a pit bull he bits down and doesn't let go.  Thats alright some time  suppose but the whole WMD thing is kind of annoying.

As to Kerry 'm not sure if I like him nough to want him in the white house then again 'the real question is who I dislike less if I choose to go sown that road.
The coting against alot of stuff can be due to some of the tag alongs asosiated with a bill.  So the whole I voted for it then against it actually makes sense.  The voting against the millitary stuff may make sense because of it.  I don't know  because I don't know what all was added to that stuff.

As to third party cadates will my vote be thrown away by voting for them probably is the biggest question there.  At least I would have voted.  People here seem to think I should vote so there would be that.  I already plan to vote.


----------



## michaeledward (May 19, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> isn't Zell Miller the guy who heads the democrats for Bush


Yes. Zell Miller is a retireing Senator from Georgia. He is a big Bush supporter.




			
				someguy said:
			
		

> As to third party cadates will my vote be thrown away by voting for them probably is the biggest question there. At least I would have voted. People here seem to think I should vote so there would be that. I already plan to vote.


Will voting for a third party candidate be considered as 'throwing your vote away? I say 'No'. In the past, in this country, so called 'Third Parties', when they build enough momentum, are absorbed into one of the two existing polictical Parties. 

If you strongly believe in the Libertarian position on the drug war, then vote for your local Libertarian party candidate. If a critical mass is reached by this 'Third Party', you will soon see 'anti-drug-war' democrats or republicans.

If you do not vote your conscience, then the positions held by 'Third Parties' will never be absorbed into the two pre-emminent political parties in our country.

You know what I am going to say next, right : 

*VOTE!*

Mike


P.S. ... if you are thinking 'Third Party', don't forget the Libertarian Party is holding its National Convention in Atlanta, Georgia next week .... (May 27 - 31),


----------

