1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Last chance for voting propaganda

Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by pissedoffsol, Nov 2, 2004.

  1. pissedoffsol

    pissedoffsol RETIRED

    Messages:
    49,693
    Likes Received:
    53
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Retirement Home
    my old roomate wrote this around via a discussion we were having between a couple college buddies.

    if anything, its more propoganda... but is a good read as well.




    To all those that vote:

    I don't think Kerry is the best candidate (damn Howard Dean), but I will vote for any alternative to BUSH - WHOM I VOTED FOR IN 2000! What four years does to someone!

    This is a very sad time for America. Never before has an incumbent promised to unit the country at the cost of division, angst and the polarization of classes. Due to George Bush's failed policies at home and abroad, Americans fear for their lives. Whether he stopped funding no child left behind, or used scar tactics to win this election, the outcome of this election will either create a new religious state or a state where science can work with nature to comfort the aged, the sick and the dying.

    In America, we still use an electorate system based on a theory that supported non-partisan elections. The founding fathers thought the electorate could keep politics honest. Unfortunately, this system should be repealed and election by popular vote instituted. Moreover, the electors were supposed to judge the temperment of the people from their ballots and select the candidate that best represented a plurality of the voters from that state (educated v. uneducated). For a long time, the runner up was vice president...but that changed. I'd be happy with a Bush-Kerry Adminstration...

    The mere fact that hawks have to appropriate time to create web pages designed to specifically tell the world what we are doing there is, quite frankly, astounding. If the war was successful, or measured to some international standard, then we would partake in a collaborate effort to rebuild Iraq and not waste 250 billion American dollars. Building schools is a good story and positive. But we did not go to Iraq to clean their water system, provide them sewage treatment, train cops or feed the poor!! Did we go to war to overthrow a dictator? Did we go to war to put another democracy in the Middle East? Funny that conservatives didn't want to go to Bosnia, THEY CLAIMED "we are not the world's police." Mother Theresa of Calcutta's efforts were newsworthy because she was honest and because she worked with the poor to stop hunger. This was her policy from the start. In Iraq, America is trying to clean up a mess that we did not have to create. We did not have to go there and no American life is safer because we toppled Saddam Hussein. In fact, by toppling Saddam Hussein, and flip flopping our reason to go to Iraq has cost us over 1,000 Americans lives. Did America catch Bin Laden's latest release?

    Remember, we are fighting an ideology, not a nation! It is different to fight a religious war (ehh, the Crusades) or islamic fundamentalism then it is to fight Spain for attacking us or for Japan attacking us (i.e. Spanish American War and World War II). An ideology is porous, fluid and can be spread throughout the world. Fighting as an ideology (Fundamental Christianity) against an ideology (Islamic Fundamentalism) carries the same weight and burden that Catholicism did by killing Muslims and Moors in Spain. Moreover, while killing terrorists, others are born with greater hatred and younger resentments. Look at how Israel and the Palestinians fight each other. The way to fight an ideology is not to attack its weakest link, i.e. Iraq, but to show them that we can coexist. This chatter about being on the offensive is absurd. This chatter about being safe or unsafe is ridiculous.

    And, remember, that 65% of Iraq was a no fly zone. That the UN had locked and monitored its weapons manufacturing program, effictively shutting it down, and even created the guns/oil for food program.

    Furthermore, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq (cf. 9-11 commission report). Sadly, we went to Iraq b/c it was the easiest target in Bush's Axis of Evil (Iran, North Korea and Iraq). Today, North Korea has pulled out of Bush's 6-nation talks and Bush will not bring N. Korea to the table to discuss disarmament unilaterally. Of course, Bush needs Communist China to talk to Communist N. Korea. Still one wonders why we can deal with Communist China and not Communist Cuba...a country "1/5" the size of China. And now that Iran and N. Korea's nuclear programs are fully developing, god only knows...Forget star wars as a dream, it could happen...

    Then Bush touts a prolife agenda? The last time I checked, prolife meant: to protect the sanctity of life. Two points: In America we practice the Separation of Church and State and War leads to senseless death. To me, prolife means: anti-abortion, anti-war, for organ donation, for stem cell research, against poverty and for an increased minimum wage (etc.)

    We were led into a war based on lies. Osama Bin Laden escaped because our efforts to capture him were deflected by this war-for-oil in Iraq. If everyone could win no bid contracts (Halliburton) we'd have our number 1 jobs, with number 1 pay with no competition.

    In the end, here are some things to consider:
    1. Colin Powell is resigning
    2. no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
    3. Milk and gas prices are higher than they were in 2000
    4. nuclear proliferation exists and russia is shifting towards a possible military state (again)
    5. movies were 8.00
    6. subways were 1.50
    7. you could still download free music
    8. did you receive a tax cut check worth $250-$500 (average check received by those making less than $100,000). If so, did that money fundamentally change your life?
    9. the supreme court is in play over the next 4 years
    10. unemployment, inflation and debt are increasing
    11. Jay Leno is retiring from the tonight show.

    Whatever the outcome, I hope we're not unwrapping gifts and swearing in a President.
     
  2. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    One thing in that I fully agree on is the disbanding of the Electoral College. It does not serve the purpose that it was originally intended to anymore. All it is now is a wall between the gov't and the people. I say that if a candidate wins the popular vote, even by one vote, he should be declared the winner.
     
  3. allmotord16rex

    allmotord16rex Senior Member

    Messages:
    379
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    Anderson, SC


    I agree with you so much. I mean it's a simple concept, if someone has more popular votes they should win.
     
  4. MaaseyRacer

    MaaseyRacer Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco, Ca.
  5. Citizen_Insane

    Citizen_Insane Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,698
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    If they disolve the Electoral college they have to destroy the idea of "States" in America. The EC exisits so that states have a say in government too. States need to fight for certain rights and rules too, and the EC allows them to do it. I agree that the EC is a retarded system, but it is nessisary. Without it states would have no way of controlling politics to their advantage. It would allow Californians decide how we Minnesotans live, and thats not something I want happening any time soon.
     
  6. Havok

    Havok Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,827
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Florida
    Someone needs to take control of Minnesota, they obviously aren't getting the job done. :p
     
  7. xj0hnx

    xj0hnx I wanna be sedated VIP

    Messages:
    14,172
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Location:
    C.C.TX.

    But do you really want things like the CARB having any more influnce anywhere else?
     
  8. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003


    He has a point.
     
  9. Havok

    Havok Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,827
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Florida
    Yeah, I thought of that before I posted...But Minnesota doesn't have a gi-normous amount of people living there like California. Those riced out cars wouldn't last 1 winter up there, so CARB would be bunk.
     
  10. DarkHand

    DarkHand Senior Member VIP

    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    241
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    You've got to remember that our country is a federated republic of states, not a singular entity. Each state operates almost entirely independently, and has agreed to work together as a country for mutual benefit.

    Without the electoral college, Presedential candidates can screw over anyone that dosen't live in a large populated area. They can cater to the needs of Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York and not worry in the least about people in Idaho, Nebraska, or anywhere else not as populated. The electoral college ensures that people from every state have an equal say in who the next president is.

    I dislike George Bush as much as the next Bush-hater here, but Bush still had more electoral votes than Gore did. Barring the fiasco in Florida, the electoral college did it's job.

    States that voted for Bush in red, voted for Gore in Blue:

    [​IMG]

    Without the electoral college, the blue states would have elected the president, overriding all the red states. Dosen't seem very fair. :p Once again, our country is a union of federated states. They're wholly independant from each other. If the voting problem kept up for long periods of time the less populated states might try to secede from that union because they had no say in who their president should be. That's exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent with the electoral college.
     
  11. Citizen_Insane

    Citizen_Insane Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,698
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Except that Bush really did lose Florida...which means that he cheated his way into office (not directly, but through his brother).
     
  12. DarkHand

    DarkHand Senior Member VIP

    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    241
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL


    I agree with that, but that's not the fault of the electoral college. :D
     
  13. pissedoffsol

    pissedoffsol RETIRED

    Messages:
    49,693
    Likes Received:
    53
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Retirement Home
    not his brother- fox news.
     
  14. Steeewart

    Steeewart Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004


    His cousin (or some relative) was the lady who was in charge of what the people on Fox say.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page