NationStates Jolt Archive

because even a monkey would make for a better president than GWBush...

besides, I watched some CNN stuff about Edwards as well as Teresa Heinz Kerry and I'm pretty impressed with both and I think their diversity will really add to the success of the Kerry presidency. With a wife like Teresa, you KNOW Kerry will be Pro-Environment.

because Kerry's the closest thing to a good President out of Nader, Bush, and himself

I also really like ketchup.





Did you know that there is Dubya Ketchup now. I want to taste it but I don't want to contribute to the Bush Cheney election, and neither do any of my friends.

One word can describe this thread:
http://cvasoc.com/NGI/images/lame.jpg

One word can describe this thread:
http://cvasoc.com/NGI/images/lame.jpg
...another example of a good reason to support John/John...

That was ignorant and stupid. And had no proof that this thread was lame.

That was ignorant and stupid. And had no proof that this thread was lame.
Lame is a mere question of opinion and therefore needs no proof. However, his opinion serves as proof that Republicans don't care too much about anything but propping up good ole Bushy and tearing down Kerry based of his "flip-floppedness' which has somehow been taken as a negative when I view this as a positive...for both sides...I mean, a vote for Kerry is a vote for the Republicans half the time isn't it? I mean, he is a flip-flopper, right?

That was ignorant and stupid. And had no proof that this thread was lame.

You must have not noticed that it was a *fox* saying it.

I could never support Kerry and Edwards. Look at what they did with the FMA just a week or so ago. They abstained. I'm sure they knew their votes wouldn't be crucial, but still. They're elected to represent their states by voting. They are not hired by the people to use their senate votes to get themselves elected to the executive branch. At least, not to my knowledge.

If your reason for electing Kerry/Edwards is that a monkey would be a better President than Bush, vote for a monkey.
If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because they're the only party that has a realistic chance of ousting Bush, realize that your individual vote probably won't set it over the edge. Realistically, Kerry/Edwards don't need your vote.
If you think that they do because lots of people are in your situation, realize that you could make a substantial difference by showing the country we're ready for alternative parties.

You must have not noticed that it was a *fox* saying it.

I could never support Kerry and Edwards. Look at what they did with the FMA just a week or so ago. They abstained. I'm sure they knew their votes wouldn't be crucial, but still. They're elected to represent their states by voting. They are not hired by the people to use their senate votes to get themselves elected to the executive branch. At least, not to my knowledge.

If your reason for electing Kerry/Edwards is that a monkey would be a better President than Bush, vote for a monkey.
If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because they're the only party that has a realistic chance of ousting Bush, realize that your individual vote probably won't set it over the edge. Realistically, Kerry/Edwards don't need your vote.
If you think that they do because lots of people are in your situation, realize that you could make a substantial difference by showing the country we're ready for alternative parties.
Maybe we'll worry about alternative parties when it isn't an election year and getting the current prez out isn't so important...like in an election year like 2000 I might've considered this, but now isn't the time. For me the number one priority is ousting the Bush Regime. And my individual vote my not do it, but I have a right to vote how I want to and God damnit, I'll be damned if you tell me that my vote doesn't matter. In the war against Iraq, no single soldier matters...it's the mass of all the soldiers working together...

Tails is a retard who can't do shit by himself without Sonic. I know, I've played the games and he has problems when Sonic isn't around.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-2/642219/kerrypurple.jpg

And my individual vote my not do it, but I have a right to vote how I want to and God damnit, I'll be damned if you tell me that my vote doesn't matter. In the war against Iraq, no single soldier matters...it's the mass of all the soldiers working together...

Sweet. Your vote does matter. That's why I think you should vote for whoever you think is the best candidate. Not who you think is the best realistic candidate that isn't Bush. But that's just my priorities speaking. But it's weird to think that somebody who says their vote matters would vote for somebody who might not be the best representative for them. I guess it only matters so much, huh?

You must have not noticed that it was a *fox* saying it.

I could never support Kerry and Edwards. Look at what they did with the FMA just a week or so ago. They abstained. I'm sure they knew their votes wouldn't be crucial, but still. They're elected to represent their states by voting. They are not hired by the people to use their senate votes to get themselves elected to the executive branch. At least, not to my knowledge.

If your reason for electing Kerry/Edwards is that a monkey would be a better President than Bush, vote for a monkey.
If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because they're the only party that has a realistic chance of ousting Bush, realize that your individual vote probably won't set it over the edge. Realistically, Kerry/Edwards don't need your vote.
If you think that they do because lots of people are in your situation, realize that you could make a substantial difference by showing the country we're ready for alternative parties.
Your first claim--about Kerry/Edwards on the FMA debate--is crap. I can see how you might not realize it, since the media did such a shit job on reporting it, so I'll explain.

In order to limit debate in the Senate, i.e. stop a filibuster, the Senate routinely takes what are called cloture votes, votes that require 60 votes to pass. That was the vote taken on the FMA--not an up or down on the Amendment itself. The attempt to pass the cloture vote was an attempt to get Kerry and Edwards on the record as voting against the FMA--which they would have done. They've both stated publicly that amending the constitution to do this is wrong.

What the Santorums and Frists of the Senate didn't realize was that not only couldn't they get 10 or so Democrats to cross the aisle and vote for the thing (they got 3 in the end), they couldn't get all of their own party to cross the aisle and vote for cloture. They lost 48-50--coldn't even get a majority in a Senate they control and with Democratic defections.

Your first claim--about Kerry/Edwards on the FMA debate--is crap. I can see how you might not realize it, since the media did such a shit job on reporting it, so I'll explain.
...
They've both stated publicly that amending the constitution to do this is wrong.


I actually did realize that and I still think it's morally repugnant for them to have abstained. They should have rejected the vote for cloture. Again, their votes weren't needed and it's certain they knew that ahead of time, but they should have voiced their opinions. I'm pretty sure the only advantage to abstaining is that nobody can say you were for or against voting on it come election time. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate another explanation (since your summary of cloture is one of the most succint, accurate ones I've seen).

I guess I came down a bit hard on you for that--sorry, but I'm a bit defensive.

If it weren't for the fact that both Kerry and Edwards have made public statements opposing the FMA, I'd say that the fact they skipped the cloture vote might mean something. Fact is, they've made repeated statements that can be used against them politically if necessary, and they're running a campaign, so why take a day away from it for a vote that's meaningless? They both said that if the FMA had passed a cloture vote, they'd have voted against it in open session, and considering what the gay vote means to the Democrats and the fact that the most rabid supporters of the FMA aren't going to vote Kerry regardless, I have no reason to doubt them.

Sweet. Your vote does matter. That's why I think you should vote for whoever you think is the best candidate. Not who you think is the best realistic candidate that isn't Bush. But that's just my priorities speaking. But it's weird to think that somebody who says their vote matters would vote for somebody who might not be the best representative for them. I guess it only matters so much, huh?

Their vote is representative, representative of the fact that they find it most important that the Bush Administration is removed from office.

Most of the time I would agree with you in being idealistic, in choosing to have an entirely representative government (I do think that one of our problems is that our government isn't representative enough), but this is a time to be realistic. Desperate times like these, when world situations are bad and relations between the U.S. and other countries are strained, call for either a.) change or b.) seeing where things go with what we're doing now. Let's be honest, that's what this election is really about: change or no change, even if it is just changing one person. In fact, (though I do have other reasons) that's why I really support Kerry. A change. I don't like the way things are going, in fact I hate it. The laws and acts Bush is trying to push here at home, and the things he's doing to piss off over 1 billion people over seas, is irresponsible and downright against many things I personally believe. I don't know if Kerry will be the best candidate, but I do believe he will take the country in a different direction than Bush. Therefore, if electing Kerry is the only way to oust Bush (which it is, because we are all a bunch of sheep, which means that most of us won't vote outside of the two parties, that's just a sad fact. You don't have to whine about it, if you have such a problem with it then do something about it) than I say vote for him!

The reason why I'm ranting at you is because you only entered this forum to tick people off by being a contradictory idiot. Just look at what you said earlier: If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because they're the only party that has a realistic chance of ousting Bush, realize that your individual vote probably won't set it over the edge. Realistically, Kerry/Edwards don't need your vote. and then later: Sweet. Your vote does matter. That's why I think you should vote for whoever you think is the best candidate. Not who you think is the best realistic candidate that isn't Bush. But that's just my priorities speaking. But it's weird to think that somebody who says their vote matters would vote for somebody who might not be the best representative for them. I guess it only matters so much, huh? so you happy now? You've succeeded. You pissed someone off, so now you can either something intelligent and worth saying, or leave.

Sweet. Your vote does matter. That's why I think you should vote for whoever you think is the best candidate. Not who you think is the best realistic candidate that isn't Bush. But that's just my priorities speaking. But it's weird to think that somebody who says their vote matters would vote for somebody who might not be the best representative for them. I guess it only matters so much, huh?

That statement is so grossly illogical. Even more so when one considers the manner in which the president is elected as compared to other elections. It the candidate who is the best representative for the person in question does not stand a chance of being elected, there is much sense in casting a vote that will help assure that the canditate that person feels will worst represent them doesn't win. Doubly so if the person voting lives in a state that where the presidential race is likely to be close.

I also really like ketchup.





Did you know that there is Dubya Ketchup now. I want to taste it but I don't want to contribute to the Bush Cheney election, and neither do any of my friends.

steal it then ;)

Standard liberal arguments. Bush is a bad president because he talks funny. Bush is a bad president because some mental patient thinks he looks like a monkey. Come on, people, don't you have anything substantial to atack Bush with (that I can't counter with something similar about Kerry)?

Standard liberal arguments. Bush is a bad president because he talks funny. Bush is a bad president because some mental patient thinks he looks like a monkey. Come on, people, don't you have anything substantial to atack Bush with (that I can't counter with something similar about Kerry)?
Uh...since those are only the joking points, I won't even comment on them...anyhow...
I won't support a president who doesn't support the United States Constitution.
I won't support a president who doesn't support the United Nations Charter.
I won't support George W. Bush.
(That's just a start.)

Choosing between Democrats and Republicans is like choosing between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

PLEASE DON'T FLAME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS!!!!! DISAGREEING IS FINE, FLAMING IS NOT!!!!!!!!

Choosing between Democrats and Republicans is like choosing between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

PLEASE DON'T FLAME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS!!!!! DISAGREEING IS FINE, FLAMING IS NOT!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure whether I want to agree or disagree with the top part, but the bottom part I definitely agree with. Flaming is pointless, but I guess if it makes the Righties sleep better then we might as well let them flame.

I'm not sure whether I want to agree or disagree with the top part, but the bottom part I definitely agree with. Flaming is pointless, but I guess if it makes the Righties sleep better then we might as well let them flame.

I appreciate it, OI. You have earned my utmost respect. However, I myself am a 'Righty,' yet I don't flame (well, maybe I have before in the past if I was having a really bad day or something, but I try not to).

I appreciate it, OI. You have earned my utmost respect. However, I myself am a 'Righty,' yet I don't flame (well, maybe I have before in the past if I was having a really bad day or something, but I try not to).
I'm not trying to be stereotypical, but since you claim to be a righty, I'll ask you this. Do you think there is more flaming from the right side than the left? It seems that way to me, but I don't read every post...

I'm not trying to be stereotypical, but since you claim to be a righty, I'll ask you this. Do you think there is more flaming from the right side than the left? It seems that way to me, but I don't read every post...

To be honest, yes. However, I have seen some ugly flaming on both sides.

To be honest, yes. However, I have seen some ugly flaming on both sides.
Oh, I'm not even about to deny that the left flames. And honestly, I view myself as more of a centrist, despite the fact that I am adamantly opposed to the Bush administration. I'm sure I'll vote for some 3rd party in 2008...unless Jeb is running...but I might not be so opposed to giving Jeb a chance...

Uh...since those are only the joking points, I won't even comment on them...anyhow...
I won't support a president who doesn't support the United States Constitution.
I won't support a president who doesn't support the United Nations Charter.
I won't support George W. Bush.
(That's just a start.)

Oh, no, Bush won't support a corrupt group of people who won't allow the US to defend herself, and who are overflowing with sloth and indecision! Say it isn't so!

And, as far as "not supporting the Constitution," well, I've answered that so many times that I'm just not up to it anymore.

Oh, no, Bush won't support a corrupt group of people who won't allow the US to defend herself, and who are overflowing with sloth and indecision! Say it isn't so!
Not sure how a pre-emptive strike on a corrupt dictator of a soveriegn nation is equated with American defense...

And, as far as "not supporting the Constitution," well, I've answered that so many times that I'm just not up to it anymore.
And I haven't seen this so called defense...so that "I've answered that so many times" just isn't going to fly here. Banning gay marriage might be what this country wants to do, and Kerry might want it too, but by God, it's not what the constitution is for...not to restrict rights...and I don't see how "There ought to be limits to freedom" (which is a Bush quote and there used to be a soundbyte on a website, but I haven't been able to find it recently) is supportive of the United States Constitution either...(by the way, he said that quote because he didn't like what some website was saying about him...he also called that site's webmaster a garbage man...)

I'm not American, I'm European, Irish specifically. John Kerry impresses me because it looks like he will actually show respect for other countries. He speaks what is it, four languages (?), very unusual for an American. I think that shows intelligence and open-mindedness.

I also think that he is a character of more integrity than Bush. He's a war veteran, and former anti-war activist himself, so I think he is unlikely to start more unnecessary wars. As regards the UN, countries shouldn't have to consult with the Security Council for defensive wars, but Iraq was not one of these.

I try to stay away from "Bush is stupidz!!!11!! lolz!" arguments, because I don't think it's true. (Though even I start to wonder at statements like "there is no French word for 'entrepeneur'.") I think that George Bush is actually fairly intelligent, but people think he's stupid because he messes up his words. I attribute this to nervousness.

One word to Kerry's supporters: if you're serious about getting John Kerry elected as the next President of the US, then you should spend less time telling everyone how bad Bush is (even though it's true) and spend more time telling people how good John Kerry is (also true).

because even a monkey would make for a better president than GWBush...

besides, I watched some CNN stuff about Edwards as well as Teresa Heinz Kerry and I'm pretty impressed with both and I think their diversity will really add to the success of the Kerry presidency. With a wife like Teresa, you KNOW Kerry will be Pro-Environment.
Classic. Heinz is a very rich lady, and therefore, she has nothing to loose spending our taxpayer dollars on some huge, bloated bureaocracy. And I won't be surprised if nothing is done for the environment, because it's a Democrat running it. Democrats have no creativity on these matters.

I'm not American, I'm European, Irish specifically. John Kerry impresses me because it looks like he will actually show respect for other countries. He speaks what is it, four languages (?), very unusual for an American. I think that shows intelligence and open-mindedness.
I didn't know he knew four languages, but I knew his wife knows five. She grew up in South Africa and studied at the School of Interpratation or something in Geneva.

I also think that he is a character of more integrity than Bush. He's a war veteran, and former anti-war activist himself, so I think he is unlikely to start more unnecessary wars. As regards the UN, countries shouldn't have to consult with the Security Council for defensive wars, but Iraq was not one of these.
Actually, if you'll look at the UN Charter, the only thing that a country has to do when they want to defend themselves is let the Security Council know. There is no debating, etc. That's self-defense...after you've already been attacked...

I try to stay away from "Bush is stupidz!!!11!! lolz!" arguments, because I don't think it's true. (Though even I start to wonder at statements like "there is no French word for 'entrepeneur'.") I think that George Bush is actually fairly intelligent, but people think he's stupid because he messes up his words. I attribute this to nervousness.
I have no doubt that George Bush is intelligent. But, he is business minded. He probably would be very successful if he just focused on business (despite having a C average), but I don't think he has the smarts needed for being a leader of a nation or head diplomat (which I consider that to be one of the presidents responsibilities...)

One word to Kerry's supporters: if you're serious about getting John Kerry elected as the next President of the US, then you should spend less time telling everyone how bad Bush is (even though it's true) and spend more time telling people how good John Kerry is (also true).
The thing about that is...I'm a Kerry supported only because I absolutely do not want Bush as president in 2004 and Kerry is the only realistic alternative, but this is a good idea...
I know one thing that makes Kerry look a lot better than Bush. Kerry's wife is a green-freak and ultra-environment friendly, which means, under the Kerry administration, more "green" laws might be passed and we might join more environmental treaties...

Classic. Heinz is a very rich lady, and therefore, she has nothing to loose spending our taxpayer dollars on some huge, bloated bureaocracy. And I won't be surprised if nothing is done for the environment, because it's a Democrat running it. Democrats have no creativity on these matters.
Hmm, I think your argument was burnt in the flames...because I don't really have a good way to respond to this...

Hmm, I think your argument was burnt in the flames...because I don't really have a good way to respond to this...
Well just think. What Democrat has been good for the environment, and at the same time, didn't make things worse? Jimmy Carter tried, but I don't think his ideas sounded interesting next to an energy crisis and double digit inflation. By using that logic, Reagan was probably the best for the environment. It was either the superfund or the Clean Air Act that was created under him, but I can't remember which. Maybe they both were.

Well just think. What Democrat has been good for the environment, and at the same time, didn't make things worse? Jimmy Carter tried, but I don't think his ideas sounded interesting next to an energy crisis and double digit inflation. By using that logic, Reagan was probably the best for the environment. It was either the superfund or the Clean Air Act that was created under him, but I can't remember which. Maybe they both were.
And obviously a first would be impossible...I mean, why would there be a first? Right? How many of these obviously anti-environment Democrats had environmentalists for wives?

The thing about that is...I'm a Kerry supported only because I absolutely do not want Bush as president in 2004 and Kerry is the only realistic alternative, but this is a good idea...
I know one thing that makes Kerry look a lot better than Bush. Kerry's wife is a green-freak and ultra-environment friendly, which means, under the Kerry administration, more "green" laws might be passed and we might join more environmental treaties...
Well, John Kerry is not really sufficiently left-wing or liberal for me, but I think he is good. If the incumbent was not so bad, or the race was not so close, I would support Ralph Nader. I would vote for him if I was American, in that situation. He probably will run in 2008, so I would wish him all the best then.

I support my country's Green party. I think the environment is one of the most important issues for everyone. Global warming is a far greater threat than terrorism (according to the Pentagon) but you wouldn't think so from all the attention most politicians give it.

And obviously a first would be impossible...I mean, why would there be a first? Right? How many of these obviously anti-environment Democrats had environmentalists for wives?
There won't be a first because John Kerry has questioned both the WTO and NAFTA. Buisnesses would hate him after that. A peice of environmental legislation may just cause a political revolt. And if he is elected, he'll suffer during the mid-term elections.

I actually did realize that and I still think it's morally repugnant for them to have abstained. They should have rejected the vote for cloture. Again, their votes weren't needed and it's certain they knew that ahead of time, but they should have voiced their opinions. I'm pretty sure the only advantage to abstaining is that nobody can say you were for or against voting on it come election time. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate another explanation (since your summary of cloture is one of the most succint, accurate ones I've seen).

I don't know if this is the case with either Kerry or Edwards, but I can think of one reason to abstain. Something like this came up in my state legislature recently and one of the senators had decided to abstain because he got pretty much a 50/50 ratio of calls from constituents for and against. He couldn't really represent his constituency by voting, so he decided to abstain.

When voting time came, the Republican party people came around and tried to convince everyone to vote. He decided to go with the party line. Thus, he is not a good representative and will most likely not get my vote (which is what a lot of his constituency called in and said).

Uh...since those are only the joking points, I won't even comment on them...anyhow...
I won't support a president who doesn't support the United States Constitution.
I won't support a president who doesn't support the United Nations Charter.
I won't support George W. Bush.
(That's just a start.)

And I always have to add:

He is breaking down the foundations of objective science by politicizing and censoring it to an unprecedented degree.

I don't know if this is the case with either Kerry or Edwards, but I can think of one reason to abstain. Something like this came up in my state legislature recently and one of the senators had decided to abstain because he got pretty much a 50/50 ratio of calls from constituents for and against. He couldn't really represent his constituency by voting, so he decided to abstain.

When voting time came, the Republican party people came around and tried to convince everyone to vote. He decided to go with the party line. Thus, he is not a good representative and will most likely not get my vote (which is what a lot of his constituency called in and said).

That's a good point. There's an off-chance that the two candidates who accurately represented their split constituency happen to be the ones running for President and Veep. I didn't bother checking. :( Shame on me.

If Kerry is such a flip-flopper then isn't one vote for him kind of like a half vote for the Republican party? I mean, what are the Righties whining about?

If Kerry is such a flip-flopper then isn't one vote for him kind of like a half vote for the Republican party? I mean, what are the Righties whining about?
He flip-flops on some issues, but I think he's bringing that under control (somewhat). But hey, I guess I'd give him a shot with his environmental policy. After all, he'll change his mind so often that he'll end up trying to build coal power plants with no smoke stacks.

He flip-flops on some issues, but I think he's bringing that under control (somewhat). But hey, I guess I'd give him a shot with his environmental policy. After all, he'll change his mind so often that he'll end up trying to build coal power plants with no smoke stacks.
...I think your fans broke because it seems as if your motherboard is spewing out flames...

spewingYAHHHHHHHH!!!
YOU SAID THE SECRET WORD!

[QUOTE=Xichuan Dao]Oh, no, Bush won't support a corrupt group of people who won't allow the US to defend herself, and who are overflowing with sloth and indecision! Say it isn't so![QUOTE]

Since there was no large amounts of WMD's (IOW, they seemed to have been destroyed as Saddam had said they were) or any definite links between Iraq and Al Queda found, how was the US defending herself? And isn't it hypocritical to supply biological and chemical weapons to someone (as Reagan and Bush I) and then turn around and attack that person, claiming that their having said weapons threatens your safety? If I were an Iraqi, it sure would smell like a set-up to me.

...I think your fans broke because it seems as if your motherboard is spewing out flames...
Hey, I'm not flaming. I'm just saying that a Kerry administration would be bad for America. Bush may divide Washington, but Kerry will leave Washington the most confused city on the planet.

Hey, I'm not flaming. I'm just saying that a Kerry administration would be bad for America. Bush may divide Washington, but Kerry will leave Washington the most confused city on the planet.
All you are doing is saying, not explaining. Why don't you explain?

All you are doing is saying, not explaining. Why don't you explain?
I already told you, Kerry wants to put every trade agreement under review. Businesses love these agreements, and many Americans do as well. It will alienate them, and if Kerry tries cooperating with businesses on the environment or anything else, it'll be taken as a joke. Kerry will, in effect, erase 23 years of economic progress in this nation.

Their vote is representative, representative of the fact that they find it most important that the Bush Administration is removed from office.
The reason why I'm ranting at you is because you only entered this forum to tick people off by being a contradictory idiot. Just look at what you said earlier and then later: so you happy now? You've succeeded. You pissed someone off, so now you can either something intelligent and worth saying, or leave.

Sigh. Those are contradictory statements. Good job noticing my ruse.

What I was trying to say was, "If you don't think your vote matters, then...", "If you think your vote matters, then..." to try to convince you that either way you should vote for what you believe in. Here's the uncondensed version from the original post if you don't want to mess around with the back button:

If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because they're the only party that has a realistic chance of ousting Bush, realize that your individual vote probably won't set it over the edge. Realistically, Kerry/Edwards don't need your vote.
If you think that they do because lots of people are in your situation, realize that you could make a substantial difference by showing the country we're ready for alternative parties.
See the first part is "If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because voting third party is a wasted vote, realize that the vote is equally significant with any party. It's only ever going to have a value of 1."
The second part is "If you think that they do need your support because you're a part of a major voting block that makes your vote significant, then you should realize that you can make a significant difference with a third party." I guess I didn't convey that well enough so you got pissed off. /apology

No response, Opal Island? Come on. I'm in a hostile mood tonight. Come, try to defeat my superior logic.

See the first part is "If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because voting third party is a wasted vote, realize that the vote is equally significant with any party. It's only ever going to have a value of 1."

Uhm...like you say, my individual vote is insignificant and it's only going to have a value of one. But Gore didn't win by a half million votes because millions of Americans felt like their vote was insignificant. He won by a half million votes because lots of people realized that their individual vote may not be significant, but all the votes on the whole made a difference. If everyone voted for a party that they truly felt represented their ideas, our winning president would probably have like 20-30% of the general vote and the most...besides Bush voters aren't going to vote 3rd party because a 3rd party represents them better than Bush so I'm not going to vote 3rd party because a 3rd party represents me better than Kerry. Consider the significance of my insignificant vote to be to cancel out a Republicans insignificant vote. Anyway, the Democrats have to win by a lot more this year, obviously...

I already told you, Kerry wants to put every trade agreement under review. Businesses love these agreements, and many Americans do as well. It will alienate them, and if Kerry tries cooperating with businesses on the environment or anything else, it'll be taken as a joke. Kerry will, in effect, erase 23 years of economic progress in this nation.
Well...it probably would be affected differently if he did things in a different order, and besides that...I don't really see how businesses play that huge of a part in the law-making process. Sure, there is lobbying and the businesses can try bullying their senators and congressmen, but businesses being mad at Kerry for reviewing trade agreements isn't going to make businesses mad at the people they lobby...

Bush voters aren't going to vote 3rd party because a 3rd party represents them better than Bush so I'm not going to vote 3rd party because a 3rd party represents me better than Kerry. ...
I know plenty of people that would vote for Bush if they hadn't found the libertarian party.
And I know plenty more that are planning on voting for Bush cause they still need convincing.
In other words "third party" is kinda a misnomer, since Green isn't the only one.

Well...it probably would be affected differently if he did things in a different order, and besides that...I don't really see how businesses play that huge of a part in the law-making process. Sure, there is lobbying and the businesses can try bullying their senators and congressmen, but businesses being mad at Kerry for reviewing trade agreements isn't going to make businesses mad at the people they lobby...
He couldn't do it in reverse order. He's been screaming about the trade agreements more than environmental policy. Besides, moost presidents love putting their campaign plans in action within the first one hundred days. Anything that's neccessary comes later.
The businesses, btw, don't effect the legislative process, but like I said, they'd punish him in '06 by funding any Republican candidate running. It would cripple Kerry, and would probably gurantee a Republican president by 2008.

Well, just look at this. for some reason (which I don't know why) most democrats have been acting a bit on the evil side. now some of you look at it differently. I know. because you just hate bush. well I don't care if you hate bush at all. I'm just sayin that because you hate bush you shouldn't go to the other canidate. look at him. Kerry is scary. all the things he promised might look good. but in the recent news they found that only a very small percentage of what he promised can be acomidated. He just has too many plans. He as a person is scary. his personality is scary. but some say. don't judge on the personality. it's not who they are. don't look at their personal life. it's not who they are. well it has everything to do with what they do and who they are. you can't teach an old dog new trick. he just does the ones he knows. I mean we need a leader who can also set a good example. but flippin people off in public isn't a good thing. heck it was in front of a bunch of kids. but if you don't care what your kids will end up thinkin than go ahead and look into kerry. it'l give ya a good argument. but just think logically and decently. how can you like kerry.

Well, just look at this. for some reason (which I don't know why) most democrats have been acting a bit on the evil side. now some of you look at it differently. I know. because you just hate bush. well I don't care if you hate bush at all. I'm just sayin that because you hate bush you shouldn't go to the other canidate. look at him. Kerry is scary. all the things he promised might look good. but in the recent news they found that only a very small percentage of what he promised can be acomidated. He just has too many plans. He as a person is scary. his personality is scary. but some say. don't judge on the personality. it's not who they are. don't look at their personal life. it's not who they are. well it has everything to do with what they do and who they are. you can't teach an old dog new trick. he just does the ones he knows. I mean we need a leader who can also set a good example. but flippin people off in public isn't a good thing. heck it was in front of a bunch of kids. but if you don't care what your kids will end up thinkin than go ahead and look into kerry. it'l give ya a good argument. but just think logically and decently. how can you like kerry.
Do you support Bush then? (serious question)
and I haven't heard anything about Kerry flipping people off in public...where was that?

Sigh. Those are contradictory statements. Good job noticing my ruse.

What I was trying to say was, "If you don't think your vote matters, then...", "If you think your vote matters, then..." to try to convince you that either way you should vote for what you believe in. Here's the uncondensed version from the original post if you don't want to mess around with the back button:


See the first part is "If you think you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards because voting third party is a wasted vote, realize that the vote is equally significant with any party. It's only ever going to have a value of 1."
The second part is "If you think that they do need your support because you're a part of a major voting block that makes your vote significant, then you should realize that you can make a significant difference with a third party." I guess I didn't convey that well enough so you got pissed off. /apology


Hmm i seem to rember during the primarys the any one but Bush attitude

Do you support Bush then? (serious question)
and I haven't heard anything about Kerry flipping people off in public...where was that?
veitnam wall momorial. i will try and find the link to the vidio a little latter

Uhm...like you say, my individual vote is insignificant and it's only going to have a value of one. But Gore didn't win by a half million votes because millions of Americans felt like their vote was insignificant. He won by a half million votes because lots of people realized that their individual vote may not be significant, but all the votes on the whole made a difference. If everyone voted for a party that they truly felt represented their ideas, our winning president would probably have like 20-30% of the general vote and the most...besides Bush voters aren't going to vote 3rd party because a 3rd party represents them better than Bush so I'm not going to vote 3rd party because a 3rd party represents me better than Kerry. Consider the significance of my insignificant vote to be to cancel out a Republicans insignificant vote. Anyway, the Democrats have to win by a lot more this year, obviously...

What I'm asking you to do is to consider that if your voting practice makes a difference, you should vote for who you believe in. If you think your vote does matter because it's a part of some great group (as your example concerning the tight Gore/Bush race implies) then you should realize that voting for a different party wouldn't be a wasted vote because there are others like you. Saying "well I can't cause nobody else is" is a self-fulfilling prophecy that dooms our politics forever.

What I'm asking you to do is to consider that if your voting practice makes a difference, you should vote for who you believe in. If you think your vote does matter because it's a part of some great group (as your example concerning the tight Gore/Bush race implies) then you should realize that voting for a different party wouldn't be a wasted vote because there are others like you. Saying "well I can't cause nobody else is" is a self-fulfilling prophecy that dooms our politics forever.
Exactly...You've gotta be willing to take that first step.
I am.

And "I'll do it when it's not so important that we get/keep _______ out of office" is bullshit. People have been saying that for years. In 2000 you needed to keep Bush out of office, now you need to get him out of office, just think who might run in 2008. You can waste every vote you have a right to on someone who isn't working in your best interests, and this country will never change for the better. We'll have Bush v. Kerry for as long as the US is still a country. Unless someone sends the message that we want something else. At the very least the two major parties will see it and shift their focus to what we really want.