| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| Who you gunna vote for? "Bush Wins" |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Who will you vote for in the 2004 Presidential Election? |
| Kerry |
|
46% |
[ 18 ] |
| Bush |
|
53% |
[ 21 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 39 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| RogerLacroix |
 Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 3264
Location: London, ON Canada
|
A stranger was seated next to little Tommy on the plane when the stranger turned to the boy and said, "Let's talk, I've heard that flights will go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
Little Tommy, who had just opened his book, closed it slowly, and said to the stranger, "What would you like to discuss?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the stranger. "How about politics? Should we keep Bush or elect Kerry?"
"OK," Said Little Tommy. "That could be an interesting topic. But, let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow and a deer all eat grass. The same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"
"Jeez," said the stranger. "I have no idea."
"Well, then," said Little Tommy, "How is it that you feel qualified to discuss who should run the country when you don't know shit?"
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| csmith28 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
| RogerLacroix wrote: |
"Well, then," said Little Tommy, "How is it that you feel qualified to discuss who should run the country when you don't know shit?"
|
I recall hearing that joke in the first presidential election I participated in 1984 Bush/Dukakis.
It is funny and all but, the fact of the matter is, our Representative Republic (not a true Democracy) system of government is based on the participation of it's citizens. Even though we are not legally compelled to participate in the system by voting. It is the responsability of all citizens over the age of 18 to Vote. Note that when the US Constitution was origianally radified only white male land owners were allowed to vote.
Oh how times have changed.
It is assumed that everyone that does Vote does so based on an educated decision. Unfortunately this is not always the case.
One of the biggest problems with the current system is that, all too often on all sides we have chiseled in stone party line Voters who make their choices based on the letter after the name, R, D, L, G, I etc... with no knowledge of what the candidate stands for or where he/she claims to stand on the issues.
This presents a problem caused largely by the way a candidates go about getting the backing of a Party. In many cases Liberals get Republican backing and Conservatives get Democrat backing by acting Moderate until they get elected. Once elected these candidates begin to show their true colors by how they vote. In some cases we have even seen politicians elected with the backing of one party switch parties after having been elected in complete disregard for the constituancy that elected them. <sighs>
But I digress. The point I am trying to make is, the fact that a citizen of the US doesn't know shit should not disqualify them from discussing who will run the country and make decisions that will have a direct impact on their lives.
| Quote: |
Main Entry: dis·cuss
Pronunciation: di-'sk&s
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discussus, past participle of discutere to disperse, from dis- apart + quatere to shake -- more at DIS-, QUASH
1 obsolete : DISPEL
2 a : to investigate by reasoning or argument b : to present in detail for examination or consideration <discussed plans for the party> c : to talk about
3 obsolete : DECLARE
- dis·cuss·able or dis·cuss·ible /-'sk&-s&-b&l/ adjective
- dis·cuss·er noun
synonyms DISCUSS, ARGUE, DEBATE mean to discourse about in order to reach conclusions or to convince. DISCUSS implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting considerations pro and con <discussed the need for a new highway>. ARGUE implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of convictions already held <argued that the project would be too costly>. DEBATE suggests formal or public argument between opposing parties <debated the merits of the amendment>; it may also apply to deliberation with oneself <I'm debating whether I should go>.
|
Now, you may have read this post and come to the conclusion that I am taking this all too seriously but, I am of the opinion that if there were more US Citizens that would take the issue of Voting more seriously, we would collectively, be much better off than we are now.
Regards,
Chris
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RogerLacroix |
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 3264
Location: London, ON Canada
|
Hi,
I fully agree that all legally eligible voters should vote in the election.
One should be careful posting country specific information in a public world-wide forum. More than half of the people coming to mqseries.net are not from the USA. Hence, they would have no interest in the election.
I would really hate to see mqseries.net start to have political posts from the 50-60 countries where the posters are from:
- Canada: In June elected Paul Martin as Prime Minister.
- Britain: Tony Blair running neck&neck with Mr. Brown in election
- Australia: On Saturday, John Howard elected Prime Minister
- India: In May, Dr. Manmohan Singh elected as Prime Minister
- etc..
As you can see, this could get really boring, really fast. (Most of the G7 nations are having major elections this year.) Everybody will have their own opinions about what politics are important to them.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Roger Lacroix
_________________
Capitalware: Transforming tomorrow into today.
Connected to MQ!
Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| csmith28 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
| bduncan wrote: |
The way it is now, we're only 1 party away from a dictatorship
So I don't know who I'm going to vote for, but if the number of letters/solicitations I've received is any indication, I think GW likes me a lot more than Kerry! |
Yeah, the two party system. <sighs> I agree it is a problem. I have researched the evolution of the two party system in American History and from what I have learned it was virtually inevitable that public opinion be split between conservative religious values and the more liberal hedonist "live and let live" line of thinking. Historically these lines have been cross, uncrossed and mired in shades of grey.
Used to be that the Dem Party was the party of the people and the Rep party was the party of big money but in all honesty they are both parties of big money now. The only difference is where the money comes from and to be brutally honest that doesn’t make much of a difference either anymore because most of the big money donators donate to both parties to hedge their bets.
I don't agree with Bush on all of his issues/decisions either. I am an Agnostic Libertarian at heart. I am a big fan of the Original Constitution and the Bill of Rights with a caveat. When the Original Constitution was ratified it was not purely enforced. Nor has it ever been.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
I am not Pro-Abortion, I really don't think anyone is but I am pro-choice simply because I am old enough to recall what it was like before abortion was illegal. If anyone wants to debate me on this issue I suppose we can start another thread.
I also disagree with Bush and the Republicans/Conservatives in regards to the words "Under God" in The Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy (a Baptist Minister) wrote The Pledge of Allegiance purely as a statement of patriotism in 1892.
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." In the very first original version "to the flag" was "to my flag".
It was not until 1954 that the words "under God" were added to the pledge by the Congress after the Knights of Columbus, a Christian Activism Group lobbied heavily. In my humble opinion, this changed The Pledge of Allegiance from being a pledge of patriotism to a patriotic prayer. Especially when you consider that during my entire public grade school experience we said, "amen" at the end of the pledge.
I would also like to see GWB free up some Federal Funds for Stem Cell research. Even though this would increase the deficit that the Liberals are already complaining about. The Liberals would have you believe that GWB has banned SCR in the US but he has not. He is just refusing to allow SCR to be federally funded but I am not going to hold my breath. Oh well.
Oil, don’t get me started. Both parties say they want to reduce the US dependence on Arab Oil but the fact of the matter is that drilling for oil in Alaska even though it would have no real impact on the environment there would not give the US any long term independence from Arab Oil and both parties are guilty of suppressing the development of sources of alternative fuel and energy.
So anyway even though I may be more of a Libertarian I am voting for GWB in spite of the fact that I disagree with him on some issues.
I believe in my heart that he is the best man for the job given the available, viable options. However this does not in any way imply that I believe he is the perfect man for the job.
In closing, I would like to say that the US political system is by no means perfect. As a matter of fact, I don’t recall having ever encountered anything in this world that is perfect except for perhaps the poster of Farah Faucet I had when I was in Junior High =]~
That being said, in my humble opinion, this representative republic sure beats the hell out of all the other forms of government that are held up as an alternative regardless of its flaws.
From the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| csmith28 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
| RogerLacroix wrote: |
As you can see, this could get really boring, really fast. (Most of the G7 nations are having major elections this year.) Everybody will have their own opinions about what politics are important to them.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Roger Lacroix |
You are entitled to your 2 cents. That is the beautiful thing about this forum. Apparently you live in a country in which you are not subject to torture or death for voicing an opinion that is contrary to that of your government unlike some of the other worldly participants of this forum.
Well, once again let me point out that this is indeed General Discussion Board on MQSeries.net and no one is being compelled or required to read anything that they are not interested in. Brandon specifically created this board for this purpose.
"General Discussion
Talk about anything in General, rant, rave, chat, argue...whatever." as long as we keep it civil.
Furthermore, define boring. Personally I would appreciate getting more information on what is happening in the political arena's of the G7 nations.
I am also interested in hearing the opinions that others have in regards to politics here in the US.
Boring to me is another god damn sitcom, boring to me is another reality show with contestants biting into cow eyeballs to fill a glass with the fluid that they have to drink so they can win $*****.
Boring to me is Pro sports. The overpaid guys in the red jersey's beat the overpaid guys in the purple pants. Who f_cking cares?
Boring to me is, Super Star so-n-so married Super Star so-n-so or Movie Star so-n-so is dating Movie Star so-n-so. Again, who f_cking cares? Sure it makes for great(not really) conversation at the water fountain or in the break room but really. Why does anyone care about this puerile, inane Bullsh_t?
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RogerLacroix |
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 3264
Location: London, ON Canada
|
| Quote: |
"General Discussion
Talk about anything in General, rant, rave, chat, argue...whatever." as long as we keep it civil. |
You go girl!
So, do you think Tony Blair will win the election to remain PM in Britain? Or is it time for Michael Howard's Conversative Party to run the country?
Do you think John Howard should have been elected PM in Australia in Saturday's election? 3rd term no less!?!
So, do you think Paul Martin's Liberal government in Canada, will they survive if there is a no-confidence vote?
Do you think Dr. Manmohan Singh PM of India can unite the extreme religious groups in India? Hence, grow the country in other areas besides IT?
Regards,
Roger Lacroix
_________________
Capitalware: Transforming tomorrow into today.
Connected to MQ!
Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| csmith28 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
I hope that Blair will be re-elected.
John Howard being re-elected was a good thing.
In spite of my personal opions in regards to gun ownership, Britain and Australia have been steadfast allies in the War on Terror.
The issues in India and Pakistan are much more complicated.
Indeed, the Muslim Extremists are the very definition of terrorism.
Not only do they murder what they consider to be infidels in their Jihad. They murder innocent children, fellow Muslims and pretty much anyone else that gets in their way.
Yeah sure, in war civilians die but when was the last time the US beheaded a military or civilian prisoner and then bragged about it?
When was the last time you watched video of US troops wearing masks while decapitating a civilian hostage and screaming "God is Great"?
When was the last time you read about the EEVul Americans intentionally bombing a bus stop or a night club to maximize civilian casualties and then bragging about it?
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Redfive |
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:56 am Post subject: Tony Blair you must be joking |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 6
|
Hi All,
just my two pence worth, Tony Blair has been the most outstanding PM we in the UK have seen for a long long time. I was over joyed when he came to power. But how can I vote for him when he has lied to us all in the UK on the reason for going to war. Time and time again he gets his friends to write reports clearing him from any wrong doing. But he knew full well the evidence was bullsh*t as did MI5, he had made a deal with GWB before he came to parliment for THE vote that we would go to war come what may. I know it is commendable for us to support our allies who have supported us in times of dire need in the past, but we live in a democracy NOT in blairs personal club. Over 1 million people marched in the UK questioning whether we should go to war, the evidence given to the public and politicians has been proved to be totaly and utterly wrong in every way no 45 mins to launch WMD they dont exist and no nukes. I for one feel my trust in my PM tony has been massively abused and I cannot forgive him for this. Lying to an entire country so as you can go to war cannot be forgiven or swept under the carpet, OK this time the man was unquestionably a tirant but what about next time or the time after that? If politicains start getting awaywith this behaviour I think it spells the end for any kind of democractic civilisation and it will just become a club for powerful people to make money and control oil supplies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Tony Blair you must be joking |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| Redfive wrote: |
| Lying to an entire country so as you can go to war cannot be forgiven or swept under the carpet |
I am not saying this sarcastically....
Do you believe that Blair and Bush knew the truth, and said "Screw it. I know without a doubt there are no WMDs, but I'm gonn a make up some story just so I can play war games. The Nintendo is broken, so I'll get my jollies by sending young Americans and Brits to fight a war." Really? Do you belive this? Do you think these 2 men are some heartless maniacs that would do this? Or my favorite, that Bush decided to go to war for oil money. What?!?? To make a couple of million bucks on oil stcoks, he would risk all that he did? C'mon.....
Or were our leaders victims of perhaps inaccurate intelligence reports? If the earth's two most powerful countries Intelligence Agencies were telling you X-Y-Z, would you not believe X-Y-Z to be true? Would you not act on it after 1000s of Americans just died, because if you didn't act on it and it was true, you would be in bigger trouble? Or would you rather have a Pres / PM who would listen to all his advisors tell him X-Y-Z, and have him say "Nah, I don't *think* X-Y-Z is true. Nah, I want to hold a WMD personally before I act on it." and ignore the intelligence reports. (Hindsight is 20/20 - no one *knew* they were not accurate back then)
And if that's the case, can you blame'em for starting that war?
(The subject of what happened after the "main" war was over is an entirely different subject. But there again hindsight is 20/20.)
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bduncan |
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 11 Apr 2001
Posts: 1554
Location: Silicon Valley
|
My main beef with the administration regarding Iraq is this:
If Bush really did base his decision on flawed intelligence (as opposed to knowing there were no WMDs and invading anyway) why haven't heads rolled at the CIA/FBI? Sure, people have resigned, and reforms have been suggested, but something needs to be done to guarantee we never declare war based on faulty intelligence EVER AGAIN.
I know that if I were president, I'd have to rely on all my advisers to provide me with enough information to make decisions. If they give me flawed/false information, I shouldn't have to take all the blame for it. But I certainly shouldn't give those guys a free pass.
But rather than addressing these shortcomings we seem to be saying, "well, we were wrong about WMDs, but Saddam really was a bad man and something had to be done about him!" Attempting to shift the reason for invading from WMDs to Saddam's horrible treatment of his people.
And yes, the world is probably a better place without Saddam, but is the world a better place with a lawless Iraq? Which goes back to the whole question of whether or not we deployed enough troops not only to win the war, but win the peace...
_________________
Brandon Duncan
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
MQSeries.net forum moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| csmith28 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
OK guys, in my humble opinion this whole issue with the Iraq War is picking nits. The fact of the matter is that the Islamic Fundamentalists have been at odds with the rest of the world (especially the Jews) for centuries.
The whole world suspected that Iraq had WMD's. If that were not the case then why did the UN have Weapons Inspectors in Iraq, on and off for twelve years while Saddam played shell games? Saddam used Chemical Weapons on his own citizens. Yes, yes I know he bought them from the US but we sold them to him after Iran used Chemical Weapons in the Iran/Iraq war when he was considered to be a more stable presence in the Arab world. At the time, in comparrison to the Ayatolla Komaeni he was more stable.
The whole world was aware that Saddam Hussien was actively supporting Terrorism, seeking Nuclear Technology. Israel bombed his Nuclear "Power Plant". Saddam violated thirteen UN Resolutions after the original Gulf War, he constantly violated the No Fly Zone that was estabished in the Peace Agreement he signed. Oh and does anyone remember how he claimed Victory after he signed that Peace Agreement?
No there was/is no conclusive evidence that showed a direct connection from Saddam to Al Quaeda but he did indeed host Terrorist Training Camps. Hell he even boasted about giving $50,000 rewards to the surviving families of Palestinian Suicide Bombers in Israel while children in his own country were starving to death and many VIP's in the UN, France, Germany and Russia got sweetheart Oil for Food Contracts.
How much more Terrorism against civilian targets was the world supposed to put up with before someone said enough. Like someone posted in this thread earlier. The US has not historically been the only victim of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. Duh
Yeah Germany and France abstained from the alliance and Vetoed the second UN resolution that gave the USA UN permission to take military action to enforce a regime change in Iraq but when GWB went into Iraq we had a coalition of over 30 participants each contributing in accordance with their means.
The only reason France an Germany even have Veto Authority in the UN is because it is grandfathered in from the time when the UN was formed. It is not as if either of these countries have been World Players since WWII. Especially after the collapse of the USSR and the Berlin Wall.
Our most steadfast allies have been Britain and Australia.
Saddam has been a bad guy since he attacked Kuwait and probably before. His country has always been unstable. The only difference between now and then is there weren't hoards of Liberal biased journalist (note: calling them journalists is somewhat of an insult to the whole concept of journalism) reporting on Saddams attempt to commit Genocide on the Kurds. We weren't getting daily reports on how many people Saddam and his Bathist Party Members were feeding in to wood chippers.
Yeah we heard all about the "ATTROCITIES" at the Abu Grav(spelling) prison but none of our "News" agencies were reporting on the mass executions, torture, rape rooms and tyranny that the Iraqi people suffered through before GWB liberated Iraq.
Yes the behavior of these individuals at Abu Graev(Grav, Grave) were unacceptable by our standards. But I really don't see how our troops playing hide the light stick or prisoner pyramid even starts to compare with what the Hussien Regime inflicted on it's own people. They didn't cut off anyones tongue and watch them bleed to death.
At this time there are two Super Powers, the USA and China. Both of these Super Powers would prefer a stable economic environment to promote growth. Currently the single largest threat to that economic stability is crazy tyrants and terrorists in the Middle East who use Islamic Fundamentalists to create havoc and chaos.
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Redfive |
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 6
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Tony Blair you must be joking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redfive wrote:
Lying to an entire country so as you can go to war cannot be forgiven or swept under the carpet
I am not saying this sarcastically....
Do you believe that Blair and Bush knew the truth, and said "Screw it. I know without a doubt there are no WMDs, but I'm gonn a make up some story just so I can play war games. The Nintendo is broken, so I'll get my jollies by sending young Americans and Brits to fight a war." Really? Do you belive this? Do you think these 2 men are some heartless maniacs that would do this? Or my favorite, that Bush decided to go to war for oil money. What?!?? To make a couple of million bucks on oil stcoks, he would risk all that he did? C'mon.....
The answer is simple YES - GWB had an agenda and TB joined in regardless of the evidence they knew they had at the time, and quite frankly going to war is not like ordering burgers from mc donalds. There is NO ROOM for errors because people die you cannot make mistakes when siting evidence for a country going to war this is unacceptable in a demacratic society. I ask you - do you believe with all the spy saterlites listening bases paid spys informers and alike do you really beleive both leaders did not know the truth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
[quote="Redfive"]The answer is simple YES - GWB had an agenda and TB joined in regardless of the evidence they knew they had at the time...../quote]
What is this agenda that would make someone decide to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands os soldiers?
| Redfive wrote: |
| I ask you - do you believe with all the spy saterlites listening bases paid spys informers and alike do you really beleive both leaders did not know the truth? |
Why would all these measures be in place? Why don't we have satellites and paid informants and weapons inspectors in Canada, Switzerland, Vatican City, etc?
Who the heck knows exactly what Bush knew back then. That point can be argued forever with neither side ever knowing 100% if they are right or wrong.
When it comes to questions of national and world security, I am positive that the Pres and the PM (whoever it is at the moment) know one thousand, no, one million times more about the details that me sitting on a couch flipping channels and reading newspapers. And I'll stand by their decision because I know they are better informed than me. Or you. Or the guy next door.
And regardless of whether the choice to go in was correct or not, I agree it is a terrible mess now. Maybe they should have invaded Iraq, maybe not. But the execution, again in hindsight, was not all that peachy.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| catwood2 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 108
|
Maybe they should have invaded Iraq, maybe not. But the execution, again in hindsight, was not all that peachy.
hmm. I agree with the hindsight idea on the decision to go and the faulty intelligence.....I don't think hindsight is required to see the issues with execution. From what I've read, the civilian pentagon side F'd that up all on their own and the military side knew they were F'ing it up the whole time. They just weren't listened to.
If there is any confusion about the despicable distortions GWB and JFK are using in their propaganda war...the site cheney mentioned in the debate is must reading:
www.factcheck.org
Vote third party. Take one for the collective consciousness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bduncan |
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 11 Apr 2001
Posts: 1554
Location: Silicon Valley
|
Too bad I don't have the ability to do that in my wonderful state of California since they booted Ralph Nader off the ballot (even though he got nearly 5% of the vote in California in 2000).
Of course, most of my friends tell me a vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush, and they'll despise me as much for voting for Nader (or any other 3rd party candidate) as they would if I voted for Bush.
It's kinda sad it's come to that, that people expect you to vote strategically, and not necessarily for the candidate you like the best 
_________________
Brandon Duncan
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
MQSeries.net forum moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
