Topic awaiting preservation: Election Thread (Page 3 of 5)

quote:

---

Iron Wallaby said:

If we're so advanced, why do we still speak words, write letters to people, construct houses from stone, eat using pointy pieces of metal, and do the same things people did thousands of years ago -- learn, grow, procreate, earn a living for one's family, die? To be honest, everyone is thoroughly grounded in so-called tribalistic traditions that we will never give up, because they define us as a species.

---

Uh, no. Communication and construction are not tribalistic as the purpose of both is inherently selfish. Ceremonial marriage is tribalistic since it requires two individuals, witnesses, and a binder who is usually of a religious background--all whom should be familially related. Learning, growing, and procreation are basic human and inherently selfish behaviors, not traditions for the purpose of supporting a tribe. Death is merely a result of life; it is neither a behavior nor a tradition. Often traditions are applied to basic behavior which may produce most of the confusion regarding what is tribalistic.

quote:

---

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying this specifically in reference to heterosexual marriage alone, but don't presume for a second that technology has changed humanity in any way. Our purposes and pursuits are the same today as they always have been; only the means of accomplishing those goals have changed.

---

Technology has significantly altered the way humans live. For instance, early humans invented wooden and stone tools to forage, hunt, and communicate. Basic goals, which fulfill basic needs, clearly do not change but perhaps they will in the future. Regardless, there is no predefined purpose to life; one define one's own existence.

quote:

---

Things are made "primitive" by their lack of scientific progress. Science's goal is not (and has never been) to change humanity's purpose, but rather, to strengthen it.

---

That is a claim which is blatantly false. Not only is your claim deterministic and thus false, it ignores the multitude of scientific disciplines that abound and prescribes some sort of nonexistent goal to the study of nature. Ever heard of immortalism or transhumanism (1, 2) or nanoengineering?

Your quotes also have no connection to the issue of primitive tribalistic behavior, which in this case regards restrictive marriage ceremonies.

(Edited by metahuman on 11-04-2004 07:54)

argh...i hate when you write something long and then accidentally lose the window somewhere...

anyway, my question was with regards to why we've decided that marriage needs to be redefined based on a trend. only over the last 20 years or so has homosexual culture and more recently the idea of homosexual marriage come to the mainstream, simply a blip on the timeline in any culture. homosexuality has been around for millenia, prevalent in biblical times and the roman empire. what happens if another sexual trend, as bugs has aluded to, presents itself in another 20 years and demands legal recognition? now we think of incestual relationships or transgenerational relationships and sick and disgusting, but they slowly became common as the roman empire degenerated sexually.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

So, let us mark the end of Mr. Bush's first 4 years, and take a look at the balance, shall we?

100 Mistakes for the President to Choose From

Well, that is a good start.

Ok, but Mr. Bush is a war President, right? Well, apparently he doesn't know much about that, either - comparing the
casualties with the same amount of time frame with the Vietnam War, we have much higher casualties than then. US War Dead in Iraq exceeds Early Vietnam Years

Heh.

And now, Mr. Bush doesn't want Global Warming to be true - as if just saying it isn't so, will make it go away. NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence and U.S. Wants No Warming Proposal.

Well, I wonder what surprises are awaiting us in the next 4 years. With the balance that Mr. Bush has shown us the last 4 years, I am very glad that I will not be in the US during them.

I already see a huge polarization of the American People that has taken place. Knowing Mr. Bush (and his incompetence), instead of attempting to lessen it, he will stumble about, and make it worse. Just viewing this thread is an interesting indicator of such a polarization (I don't think we need to talk about the Global Outlook, do we? ).

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-04-2004 08:25)

quote:

---

poi said:

Let's start with same-sex marriage. We'll see later for polygamy if you want. As
a side note, has a 3+ persons union of persons, for who polygamy is not in the
culture, already asked the right to marry ?

---

Thanks for your honesty. I think you've answered my question. This would only be the beginning of who would be allowed to marry. I predict that not only would it involve more than 2 persons, but there would be some who would want it extended to minors, and I know you don't believe this but most certainly extended to pets.

And, yes, there is a man in the news right now that had multiple wives who is in trouble with the law. In the early days of Mormonism, polygamy was practiced by members of the church. While the church has distanced itself from that position, there are still hold outs who still practice it. It is currently illegal to do so in this country. He and his wives would very much like to be legally recognized and not discriminated against. Would you discriminate against him and his wives if you were making the laws, poi?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

^ You really think he'll live that long, with his heart condition?

ha ha ha..., I wonder why Bush didnt use him in his campaign more?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Because the Pacemaker battery has to be recharged on a regular basis!!!

I think there are some Americans that are fed up with the bad press about America, and decided to elect some scary guys to flex the American muscle.

Famous quote question:
Who said it is better to be feared than loved?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

uhhh...Stalin?

quote:

---

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

---

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Bugimus: I was kinda ironic when I said : "We'll see later for polygamy if you want.".

Honestly I have no clear idea about polygamy. What I know is that marriage is about the union of 2 persons and that gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to marry though they go by 2 and accept the responsabilities and duties involved by the marriage. To go back on polygamy, if one can proove every person of the union consent to it and they feel a prejudice from the refusal of a legal status, there's no way to not consider their request. If that kind of request grow to a phenomenon of society, it really needs to be further examined and eventually give it a legal status.

Regarding the age of marriage, I don't know for the other counties but in France, anybody can marry as long they are 18+ with no restriction ( except of sex difference ), and as long as they are 13+ and have the concent of their legal tutor. That law applies to everybody so it makes no discrimination. Children below 13 are not considered legally responsible.

WebShaman:

Oh, and it looks like I forgot to add the coalition of the willing is slowly turning into the unwilling Hungary to remove 300 troops.

Nice one.

WS, forgive me for putting it this way, but if Bush decided to pull out of Iraq tomorrow and then subsequently bomb Iran and the DPRK, is that what it would take to make you think he was on the right track? I ask this because it seems your biggest argument is not that he attacked another country but that he attacked the wrong country.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I was pretty sure Kerry would win but oh well...yay! Bush won!

"You know you have been doing 3d too long when you walk into a church and think, "God, the polycount of this place must be huge!"

??

Pull out of Iraq tomorrow? Uhhh...no, I never said that (nor have I recommended that!) If the US pulled out tomorrow, the place would fall apart in an instant. I don't think that would help anyone. I am highly critical of Mr. Bush and his administration because it is so incompetent
(and I am not alone - the facts speak for themselves, and even Mr. Bush admited to making mistakes). His biggest failure - Bin Laden is still out there! What the hell was Mr. Bush thinking, of going into Iraq, with Bin Laden still out there? I remember you saying, Bugs, that we would do all three (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bin Laden). Guess what? You were wrong! "We" did not do all three. The Taliban and Al Qaeda has quietly snuck back into Afghanistan, and is making trouble there, Bin Laden is still out there, and probably even influenced the vote in America a bit.

That is Mr. Bush's biggest failure. We should have sent in massive numbers of troops, until we had either Bin Laden, or his body. Due to Mr. Bush's total incompetence, we let him slip away TWICE!!! That you (and a majority of Americans) continue to support the incompetant fool is just beyond me.

Iran and North Korea are really dangerous. I find it very strange, that Mr. Bush is willing to attempt to "talk" with Iran and North Korea, both lands that have continually defied and taken American lives, and have certainly made no secret of their desire to see America destroyed, as well as their direct support of Global Terrorism, but a land that didn't have the capability to harm anyone, was invaded.

I think that Iran was, and is, a much better target as Iraq. And so is North Korea, for that matter.

Mr. Bush has already failed so miserably at so many things, I no longer trust him to do anything competently, other than mess things up further. His choice for his "new" cabinet says everything. He is not interested in attempting to heal the divide in the country, but will attempt to "go ahead" as before - a disaster. Perhaps for you neo-con far right-wingers, you see it differently. I speak as a moderate Republican...and I think I represent an alarmed part of the Republican party, that sees it getting hijacked by the far-right. Well, there was never a better time for your part of the REpublican party. You have all that you need - A Republican President, a major gains in House and Senate, and the chance to swing the Supreme Court to the far right. You better hope that the country turns out for the better. Because if it doesn't, there is going to be a huge backlash.

We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he attacked the wrong country! Iraq is nothing, will be nothing, irregardless of whether or not America succeeds in installing a Democracy there, because Iran will have Nuclear Weapons (if they don't already). The influence that they will have on the region will be immense, because of that. We had a chance to stop it. Mr. Bush fumbled the ball, now Iran has made up for the lack of attention on it. Or are you now seriously suggesting, that we should now go into Iran, with Iraq in the mess that it is?

Do I even need to go into detail on North Korea?

That is foreign affairs. On the homefront - I don't think Mr. Bush could do any worse (well, hacking down what is left of the forest, and plundering the Artic Wildlife Reserve for raw materials is worse).

But maybe Mr. Bush will turn around, and suddenly fix everything!

Right.

And tomorrow, I will win the lottery.

How many barrels of oil is an Iraqi life going for these days ?

Maybe, Iraq was necessary to take as a forward position...

Now that we have Iraq, we can launch attacks on Iran from several fronts.

Then, once we secure the resources of Iran... err, liberate the people of Iran, then we can move on toward Korea.

With the axis of evil under our military control we can then move to the next problem country... And with oil at $75US per barrel our corporate war sponsors will be able to fund a massive strike anywhere in the world. The American dream can become everyones dream.

[Edit]
in reply to:

quote:

---

uhhh...Stalin?

---

tsk, tsk, noooo!

It was Machiavelli who said it is safer to be feared than loved. I believe Stalin took the concept a little too far.
[/edit]

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 11-04-2004 19:08)

quote:

---

If it weren't for that shithole of a city Philadelphia, my state would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for LA and SanFran, California would have gone to Bush. If it weren't for NYC, New York would have gone to Bush. You take the cities out of any of these states and the entire map would be red, except maybe Mass.

---

You take the cities out of any of these states and you have no America my friend.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I remember you saying, Bugs, that we would do all three (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bin Laden). Guess what? You were wrong! "We" did not do all three.

---

Correction, we *are* doing all three. I totally disagree with you that we can only do one thing at a time. We fought an entire world war in Europe *and* in the South Pacific. It can be done and it has to be done in parallel when you have so many problems that need addressing.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You better hope that the country turns out for the better. Because if it doesn't, there is going to be a huge backlash.

---

Don't you see that the backlash is already happening? We are witnessing the backlash from the extremist Left wing that has been so powerful in the last half century. The Democrats are in disarray, their party is the party of extremism. The fact is that this country is just not that leftist and that is why Bush won in spite of everything the media and 527s threw at him. The Republicans don't need to move center, it's the Dems who need to wake up and realize they are losing their base because the party is led by extreme left wing idealogues. But if the Dems continue down that path, it is fine by me because it just means the Republicans will just continue to prevail. We'll have to see what Hillary comes up with in '08 to see if she has as much sense as her husband when it comes to moving to the center to win elections.

And I do believe the policies of the Republicans are going to help this country. Of course I do. I don't just switch parties on a whim! I was a Dem and saw that all the rhetoric about helping the "little guy" was not working and that is why I switched to a party that had a better approach to that ideal. Face it, the moral weight has switched from the Dems to the Reps over the last few decades. Slowly but surely the traditional Democrat base is realizing the Republicans are the ones that are coming up with new ideas and new approaches to our problems. All they get from the Dems is the same tired worn out cliches. It is almost like a litmus test for being a Democrat these days is to see how many times you can repeat "tax cuts for the rich". As Dan mentioned earlier, the Dems *must* reinvent themselves or they risk going the way of the dodo bird in the coming decades.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Correction, we *are* doing all three.

---

Oh, we captured Bin Laden, and brought him to justice? *hurries off to Google it*

*Comes back*

Nope.

Untruths, Bugs. Untruths.

We had TWO very distinct opportunities to do it. Too few soldiers, too many mistakes. Why are you in denial over this? The FACTS here are plain and simple. Had we devoted more soldiers the first time (instead of devoting them elsewhere), we would have nailed him.

In this, you are very, very wrong. Everything points to the fact that you are wrong. Support your postion, please.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Had we devoted more soldiers the first time (instead of devoting them elsewhere), we would have nailed him.

---

You explain to me why more soldiers would have accomplished it. More soldiers would have been swallowed up in Afghanistan. It is not always a matter of more soldiers doing a better job. It's like the mythical man month concept. Managers in companies often believe that if a project is behind schedule that adding another person to it will double the results. There is a reason why that mentality is called "mythical".

I saw an interview a few weeks ago by a commanding officer operating in Afghanistan (sorry I don't remember his name) who stated just that. He said that more soldiers was NOT the problem in Afghanistan. He said that you could be in one valley and have absolutely no clue what was happening in the very next valley over due to the very difficult terrain there. He was the one who used the language of throwing more soldiers into the effort as being swallowed up.

As I understand it the special ops were working with the local warlords in those operations. Is that not the case?

In either case, the fact that mistakes are made during these operations does not mean that we are not making progress and learning from those mistakes. If you insist that it is simply a numbers game and too many forces were diverted to Iraq then we just have to disagree on that. I don't buy it, it seems far too simplistic to be our main problem for me to accept it.

Also note that I said we *are* doing it. It is a process. One thing I know to be true and that is if we stick to it, we will prevail. The only thing that will cause us to fail is if we give up on this effort. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to giving up on things, dare I mention Vietnam?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

We had TWO very distinct opportunities to do it.

---

Ok, I need to ask you a very important question on this one. We now know that Bill Clinton had THREE clear opportunities to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. In each of the three cases, he chose not to take the shot. Are you willing to berate him with equal if not more vigor as you are with Bush? Can't you see that our problems began before Bush even came onto the scene? And for that matter I'm not even saying it began under Clinton's watch because it didn't. It began during the Cold War but we were too busy with bigger fish at the time to notice or care. Then when the Cold War was won we simply did not want to deal with the growing threat of Islamo-fascism.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

...uh...I almost don't want to step in here. Well, almost.

quote:

---

Then when the Cold War was won we simply did not want to deal with the growing threat of Islamo-fascism.

---

[my emphasis]
Many of the people on the so-called "far-left" were talking about Islamo-fascism/radical Islam for a long time...including during and immediately after the end Cold War.
So, I guess it all depends on who one calls "we".

(Just here to keep everyone mostly honest. Other than that, have fun. =)

Ok Bugs, here we have Tora Bora :

Tora Bora falls, but no bin Laden

quote:

---

Though Mr. Rumsfeld has said that the two dozen or so US Special Forces are helping to block exit routes, that number of US military personnel can only be considered a token of the real figure needed to cut off all the mountain passes surrounding the mountain enclave. The number of possible passes is in the dozens, if not the hundreds.

---

So, if Bin Laden was there, we had nowhere near the troops that we needed! Two Dozen or so? And some Afghan troops?

You are really surprising me on this Bugs. You normally do a very good job of researching these things, then deciding. You are not doing it this time. I am pretty shocked.

This just proved you wrong. This alone. And there is more, much, much more. I could fill pages here with more. But I don't have to. This is enough.

quote:

---

We now know that Bill Clinton had THREE clear opportunities to capture and/or kill Bin Laden. In each of the three cases, he chose not to take the shot. Are you willing to berate him with equal if not more vigor as you are with Bush?

---

To a point, hell yes! But remember, Bin Laden hadn't just sent two jumbos crashing into the Twin Trade towers, Bugs. But what has this got to do with Clinton? I'm a bit puzzled about that. As I recall, 9/11 didn't happen during his presidency. Clinton didn't know that Bin Laden was going to do that. Had Clinton made the same mistakes that Bush has made, I'd roast him. Bugs, I would roast ANYONE, irregardless of who it was! I think you are misunderstanding me. I think you believe that somehow I have something personal against Mr. Bush.

This is not true. I have explained this before. I don't know the guy personally. I am evaluating his performance as a war president. If it was anybody else, the'd be getting the same evaluation irregardless of who or what they were.

Welcome to last year.

Gee WS, I wonder why anyone would think you had something personal against Bush?

*goes back and reads your posts in this thread and others*

Oh yeah, that's why.

:::11oh1:::

Does it matter if he has something personal against Bush? Not really. The invasion of Iraq was based on a personal vendetta. Bush is even quoted saying, "He tried to kill my dad." If Americans aren't going to hold their President accountable for waging a personal war based on lies, then one would reason holding a concerned citizen of the U.S. accountable for waging a personal war against Bush using facts, not lies, is simple-mindedly hypocritical and arrogant.

(Edited by metahuman on 11-04-2004 23:13)

*shrugs*

If that is what you think. If, however, that is the impression that you have gotten, then I apologize, for that was not my intent. I just get tired of digging up thing after thing that directly supports my conclusions, only to have them be bluntly ignored concerning a number of things that Mr. Bush has made mistakes on.

I suppose I should just let it slide. It will not make any difference, and will not change things.

That is probably the only thing to learn here. It won't change things, to point out that someone was wrong. The deed is done.

*shrugs*

WS, I am not saying there were no mistakes. And you're right I am not totally up on all the details. But that is because I agree with the overall effort. I am saying that there is no way you can do something of this magnitude without making mistakes. Look an any and every war that has ever been fought and I'll show you mistakes upon mistakes. But the winners were the ones who learn from and move quickly from those mistakes and perservered. Before any of the wars began, I always pointed out that they would be messy and horrific but that they were justified and necessary. I won't spell out all my reasons here again. We've been there the two of us.

[edit]One more point I forgot... When were the two towers attacked originally? Was that not sufficient heads up? [/edit]

mobrul, we refers to the country and the leadership collectively. You are absolutely correct that those on your side and on the right as well were warning of the danger all along. I remember the warnings years ago. I remember the hearing where experts testified that it wasn't a question of if we would be attacked but when we would be attacked. We (collectively as a people and nation) did not take the appropriate steps to head it off. Would you agree with that?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-04-2004 23:28)

quote:

---

I just get tired of digging up thing after thing that directly supports my conclusions, only to have them be bluntly ignored concerning a number of things that Mr. Bush has made mistakes on.

---

It's because you continue to think that just because Bush failed, people should have voted for the other guy.

That's absurd. John Kerry was completely out of touch with the American people. He had bad political plans, terrible social plans, and frankly, stupid economic plans. That's why Bush won, because he was the better of the two candidates that could win the election. There's no reason to believe that everyone who voted for Bush did so because they "continue to support the incompetent fool", it was just unimaginable letting someone like John Kerry sneak into power through anger at Bush, and then beat up on America with a ridiculous platform.

Absolutely agree with it =)
(Just hadn't posted in a while...itchy fingers... )

There is no such thing as a war on terrorism

The fallacy of the war on terror

Here's some polls to consider: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Two Nations Under God

(Edited by metahuman on 11-05-2004 00:08)

I know I'm entering into this a little late... well, a lot late really... But I just wanted to interject my opinion into the quagmire...

It took me until just a few days before the election to finally decide who to vote for. I wasn't happy when I filled in the little oval next to President Bush's name. Ultimately it came down to one thing for me - the Iraqi people. Regardless of the reasons we went over there, and regardless of the mistakes that had been made I felt that come what may, we had to finish what we started. Senator Kerry was an unknown quantity - I couldn't trust that whatever his "plans" were included doing the job in Iraq. I felt that we couldn't just pack up and leave and expect the Iraqi people and/or the UN to come in and clean up the mess.

I made this decision despite the fact that the majority of what President Bush stands for goes against my core beliefs. It irritates me to no end that he lets his faith dictate the policy of the United States. <Hands over can opener for Can 'o Worms> If there had been a better, more competent opponent than Senator Kerry, I may have found myself in the "Anybody but Bush" camp...

On a side note - a movie just recently opened in our area that I am planning to go and see. It's called Voices of Iraq (not sure if info has been posted about this yet or not... I may have missed it) Basically the film maker sent a bunch of people over to Iraq with 150 camcorders. They gave them to the Iraqi people with instructions to tape their daily lives, interview each other, basically give the outside world an inside view of their lives. They received something like 70 of the cameras back. I'll post info about it once I go and see it...

People shouldn't vote if they haven't researched the candidates.

Wikipedia: George W. Bush

Wikipedia: John Kerry

Regardless of who occupies the Throne, business will continue to run America and America will continue to run on business. I'm not worried.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

meta,

quote:

---

There is no war against terrorism. There can be no such thing against an enemy that remains dormant most of the time and is almost never visible. It's simply another of life's inevitable troubles, and all we can do as we continue to combat it is repeat Cervantes's famous phrase "Paciencia y barajar": "Have patience, and keep shuffling the cards."

---

Emphasis was added by me from your link above meta. This is a key disagreement I had with John Kerry. I believe he subscribed to the bold text I quoted. I do not think we should treat this particular brand of terrorism as a bump in the road of life. Like it or not, the US under Bush's leadership has embarked on a global attack on this "bump". I believe we can drastically reduce and possibly eliminate this particular brand of terrorism from our world if we persevere. I very much want us to to do that because I have seen what happens when we allow it to fester. I do not wish to see more 9/11s as a result. Spain, to their utter shame, has emboldened Islamist terrorists by their policy of appeasement.

Anyway, just so you don't think I never agree with you, I agree 100% with:

quote:

---

metahuman said:

People shouldn't vote if they haven't researched the candidates.

---

Trey Parker and Matt Stone would be very proud of you having that position too

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-05-2004 01:22)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Like it or not, the US under Bush's leadership has embarked on a global attack on this "bump". I believe we can drastically reduce and possibly eliminate this particular brand of terrorism from our world if we persevere. I very much want us to to do that because I have seen what happens when we allow it to fester.

---

As usual, evidence exists contrary to your beliefs. Worldwide terrorism has increased, the rate of growth of terrorist groups have increased... Bush serves as a recruiting poster for terrorists. It's only a matter of time before there's another instance of terrorism in the United States thanks to your incompetent president, George "the Burning" Bush. I've seen what happens when you fight fire with fire. The fire simply grows.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Please welcome King George of the United States.



(Edited by metahuman on 11-05-2004 02:23)

I voted in California... 55 electoral votes and no one bothered to campaign here. [OK, that's hyperbole but fairly mild hyperbole]

I myself saw very little difference between Kerry and Bush, if my vote would have actually counted for anything I probably would have voted for Bush. Not necessarily the lesser of two evils, the more predictable of two evils. He is gonna do some Saber Rattling, some international offending, and some downright despicable things. But I believe Kerry would have also done more damage than good. Hell, they'll both as likely to do more damage than good. At least I know a little more with Bush so I would've gone for the better known of two evils.

But, I voted in California so... I voted Libertarian. It's the lessest of all evils. Too bad they will never get by the corporate juggernaut that is powering our two party system... Oh well, only four short years till we see the Cheney 2008 bumper stickers.

I hope someone can prop up a sock puppet or SOMEONE that can nip that in the bud.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

How do you win a "war" when your Commander-in-Chief is predictable?

You don't really believe it'll be Cheney in 2008, do you? Rudolf Giuliani might have something to say about that... Arnie too if he can get the amendment passed.

Congrats on voting libertarian though. If more people would take the initiative, maybe they could actually break the two party system. You need to keep voting for the best candidate, and not voting to prevent one from winning, it's the only way the system will improve.