The W
Views: 99984175
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 0721
The W - Current Events & Politics - Something we didn't know: Bush and Kerry both liars
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.94
Pages: 1
(1102 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 1 day
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.01
Something interesting that shouldn't surprise anyone, but both candidates have twisted stories and omitted facts. Shocking, I know:

Facts suffer in Bush, Kerry campaigns (story.news.yahoo.com)

Based on things like this and things like the endless smear campaigns from both sides, what's an undecided voter like me to do? And what are the masses to make of what's become the most negative presidential campaign in decades?




Kane: Come on! We've had midgets and fire and midgets and Trish as the slutty bridesmaid and midgets. What's not to like?
Lita: I guess it still beats anything on "The Bachelor"
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 59 min.
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.25
    Originally posted by It's False
    And what are the masses to make of what's become the most negative presidential campaign in decades?


You're only 21 so I suggest you check out Bush-Dukakis, Nixon-McGovern, or Nixon-Humphrey. And since most don't vote in primaries let alone the real deal, maybe the masses should get off their asses. I am not directing that at you.



Perception is reality
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 135 days
Last activity: 29 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.36
    Originally posted by It's False
    Based on things like this and things like the endless smear campaigns from both sides, what's an undecided voter like me to do?
Well, one thing an undecided voter can do is remind himself that there are more than two candidates running for President. For example:

http://badnarik.org

http://www.votenader.com

http://www.votecobb.org

http://www.peroutka2004.com

among others. The point is that you have more than two candidates to choose from. Don't let anyone delude you into thinking otherwise.




Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
      Originally posted by It's False
      Based on things like this and things like the endless smear campaigns from both sides, what's an undecided voter like me to do?
    Well, one thing an undecided voter can do is remind himself that there are more than two candidates running for President. For example:

    http://badnarik.org

    http://www.votenader.com

    http://www.votecobb.org

    http://www.peroutka2004.com

    among others. The point is that you have more than two candidates to choose from. Don't let anyone delude you into thinking otherwise.



Right. That's assuming, of course, that you have no intention of affecting the process. Sure you can protest. Back in high school, we had prom king and queen and Patty broughton was up for queen, along with Rosemary Robertson and some girl named Eileen. Now it was clear Patty or Rosemary was going to get it. Patty was lead cheerleader and the Principal's daughter while Rosemary was a hottie and in band, honor society and the star basketball player's squeeze. But I voted for Eileen, because I liked her and I didn't want her to feel left out. You could do the same for the Libertarians or the Reforms or Mr. Unsafe at any age. Heck, I'm sure Lyndon LaRouche is on the ballot in some states.

You get to vote for whomever you want, or for nobody. That's freedom. But IF you vote for anyone except Bush or Kerry, you're just voting to make them or you feel good, it cannot affect the election in any significant way. Now I know, last time, Nader got votes that this guy should have gotten or that guy. But the effect was, it was as if they had not voted at all. It had the exact same effect. Bettr to choose one or the other on whatever merits you can find and choose and at least allow yourself to affect the election instead of letting wild-eyed republicans and democrats do their thing and you feel the effect later.

Just a thought, False. (but if you're thinking Kerry, I suggest Nader.. )





Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 59 min.
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.25
AWA, if enough people said no to the two major parties, it might make a difference. Enough to elect a third party candidate? No. But perhaps enough to make the two major parties more responsive.



Perception is reality
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 135 days
Last activity: 29 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.36
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    If you vote for anyone except Bush or Kerry, you're just voting to make them or you feel good, it cannot affect the election in any significant way.
Allow me to respectfully disagree, for several reasons. First, a minor party candidate in the Presidential election need not be the highest vote getter to "win". Minor party candidates "win" if they can gather enough votes to be entitled to share in the tax payer money set aside for Presidential candidates and their parties. Simply capturing as little as five percent of the total popular vote entitles a minor party candidate to receive federal funding for their campaign. To quote a term coined by Jesse Unruh, Speaker of the California Assembly from 1961 to 1968, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." So while a third party may not win the election, it can gather enough votes to receive the money that will allow it to grow (for a very recent example, just look at the Reform Party and its growth during the 1990s). So helping a minor party attain that five percent (or more) will definitely affect not just the current election, but future elections (federal, state and local) as well.

Second, look at the three most recent U.S. Presidential elections (1992, 1996 and 2000). Can you honestly say that third party candidates (Perot in 1992 and 1996, Nader and Buchanan in 2000) did not significantly affect those elections?

Finally, there is a point that I alluded to in my prior post. U.S. voters allow themselves to be deluded into thinking that they need not bother to vote because their vote doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, the majority of people eligible to vote in the U.S. don't vote, and the main reason why they don't vote is because they have become disenchanted with the two-party system, and believe the lie that they are powerless to change it. Now, anyone who can perform simple mathematics can see how ridiculous that is. We're talking the majority of eligible voters. Yet most of these people don't vote because they have been hypnotized into believing that their vote doesn't matter. They have been told over and over again that unless they vote for either a Republican or a Democrat they are just throwing their vote away; and, sadly, they believe it.

Take that High School election you referred to. You voted for Eileen even though you felt she had no chance of winning. Allow me to adjust your example to fit the U.S. Presidential election process. Imagine that there were five hundred students who were eligible to vote for Prom Queen. Now imagine that two hundred and sixty of them, over half the students who could have voted in that election, didn't bother. They, like you, liked Eileen, but they believed that their vote didn't matter, because either Patty or Rosemary was going to win anyway. So, Patty or Rosemary wins with, say, one hundred twenty five votes. This is the majority of votes cast, but only twenty-five percent of the total votes that could have been cast.

Now that's pretty silly, right? I mean, could you imagine all two hundred and sixty of those students who didn't vote slapping themselves on the forehead once they did the math and realized that if they had only cast their vote for Eileen as they wanted to, that Eileen would have been elected Prom Queen? But that's how elections work in the U.S. Half the people who can vote don't, and they don't because they are convinced that their vote doesn't matter. And that's just wrong.




Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1316 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.75
Personally, I can't stand that "If you vote for a 3rd party, you are wasting your vote" mentality. Especially in this world where often times, the 2 choices presented both suck.

But mostly, I think this attitude comes from someone from a major party who ends up losing, perhaps due to the third party guy. Republicans and Perot. Democrats and Nader. Why would you EVER vote for a third party guy, if that means the "real" canditate is going to lose?

The way I see it - nowhere in the Constitution does it say "Republican and Democrat." In fact, I think loyalists to both those parties have an unreasonable, elitist attitude.

Sure, I do tend to vote Republican. But I have voted across the line, even to a third party on occasion. Hell, I have even voted for a Green Party canditate once or twice. If more people looked at an election as a choice for the best person for the job, instead of the partisain pissing contest that it is, we might actually get some better choices for these offices.



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I have a very good reason not to vote third party, especially this election.

The four "Big Name" third party candidates previously mentioned are all nuts.

Badnarik's crew had a rally on 9/11 calling for the end of the war on terror.

Cobb is a socialist.

Nader is running to sell more books.

Peroutka is running on a Theocracy platform.



Brian P. Dermody
Liverwurst
Moderator








Since: 20.9.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 938 days
Last activity: 360 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.01
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Peroutka is running on a Theocracy platform.


So's Bush. The only difference is that Peroutka is even *more* of a Bible thumping reactionary lunatic.

He's so nuts it's hard to believe Pat Robertson isn't backing him.

I love that he supports abolishing the Department of Education. Does it have many gaping flaws? Absolutely. But abolishing it utterly? I guess the stupider you keep people, the easier it is to get them to believe everything you tell them.



You can't spell "AWOL" without "W"

The next seduction.
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 799 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
    Originally posted by DJ Ran
      Originally posted by Grimis
      Peroutka is running on a Theocracy platform.


    So's Bush. The only difference is that Peroutka is even *more* of a Bible thumping reactionary lunatic.


You're kidding, right? Right?

Seriously, most of the religious conservatives that I know, and I'm a member of a conservative Baptist church, aren't that enthusiastic about Bush and a lot of his programs. The only reason that many of them are voting for Bush is the R next to his name on the ballot.

If Bush were really running on a theocracy platform, I guarantee we'd be seeing a lot more of Roy Moore and his ilk than we currently are. Instead, Bush is honest enough, unlike Kerry, to admit that his faith plays a role in his decision making. Plus, Bush and his advisers still believe in the plain language of the 1st amendment which means that they still believe in the freedom of religion in the public sphere, not freedom from religion as some activists would interpret that clause.

Tim



People who say they don't "play politics" merely play politics badly. -- David Drake
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 135 days
Last activity: 29 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.36
    Originally posted by DJ Ran
    I love that he [Peroutka] supports abolishing the Department of Education. Does it have many gaping flaws? Absolutely. But abolishing it utterly? I guess the stupider you keep people, the easier it is to get them to believe everything you tell them.
Just as a point of information, the Department of Education was created in 1980 (ed.gov) during the Carter administration. So, unless one considers people educated in the U.S prior to 1980 to be "stupider" than those educated since, it's difficult to see the connection between the U.S. Dept of Education and the IQ of the average American.

As a further point of information, Ronald Reagan ran for president on 1980 with the promise that if he were elected, he would abolish (pbs.org) the Dept of Education. In fact, this would remain a plank in the Republican party platform for several Presidential elections. Now, people may agree with Jimmy Carter and other Democrats who believe that abolishing the U.S. Department of Education is a nutty idea; or they may agree with Reagan, Bush, Buchanan et al that the creation of this federal agency (which now has 4,800 employees and a $54.4 billion annual budget) was a nutty idea; the point is that this is an issue created by the two major parties, not those on the fringe.

Speaking of Peroutka, as Grimis pointed out last month in another thread (The W)
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The McCain-Feigngold Act requires that all federal campaigns have a line, spoken by the candidate, that says "I'm so and so, and I approved this message" or something like that. The candidate has to apply that it is they, and that they approve. Every once in a while, you'll have one that works it into their point, i.e. "I'm Joe Blow, and I approve this message because Americans need school choice" or something like that.

    Every once in a while, you get a gem like this:
      Originally posted by Washington Times 7/8/04
      Consider Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate for president, who just finished taping a double-whammy of a television ad (airing soon at Peroutka2004.com) that simultaneously criticizes his opponent and one of the better-known federal election laws.

      The ad begins with Mr. Peroutka viewing one of President Bush's campaign ads, at the conclusion of which, as required by law, the president says he "approved" of the ad.

      At which point, Mr. Peroutka appearing respectful, but disappointed turns off the television, shakes his head, and states: "Hi, I'm Michael Anthony Peroutka ... and I do not approve of President Bush's ad. I do, however, approve of this ad, my ad, and I'm forced to say this by yet one more absurd, unconstitutional, federal law."


Nuts or not, it sounds like the man knows how to make a great commercial poking fun at a bad law.
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Cobb is a socialist.
Now, Grimis, I realize that in your mind socialist = nuts, but the real question is this: Does being a socialist place Cobb, the Green Party candidate, to the right or to the left of FDR and LBJ? 8-) Besides, when one considers that Walt Brown (waltbrownforpresident.org) is the Presidential candidate for Socialist Party USA (sp-usa.org) while Bill Van Auken is the Socialist Equality Party (wsws.org) candidate for President and Roger Calero is the Presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers Party (votethirdparty.com) it seems that there are almost as many socialists running for President of the U.S. this year as there are capitalists.

Finally, for those interested, it appears that this site (politics1.com) has the most complete listing of all the candidates who are running for President this year. And it seems unlikely that they're all nuts. At least, IMHO.


Edited to remove an inaccuracy.

(edited by Downtown Bookie on 18.9.04 1713)


Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
      Originally posted by AWArulz
      If you vote for anyone except Bush or Kerry, you're just voting to make them or you feel good, it cannot affect the election in any significant way.


    Allow me to respectfully disagree, for several reasons.



I like that kind of dialog.

    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
    First, a minor party candidate in the Presidential election need not be the highest vote getter to "win". Minor party candidates "win" if they can gather enough votes to be entitled to share in the tax payer money set aside for Presidential candidates and their parties. Simply capturing as little as five percent of the total popular vote entitles a minor party candidate to receive federal funding for their campaign.


So, it's not about affecting elections or changing america, it's about getting some money redistributed from working people or the people who employ them. What hogwash. Sure, they get some money to pay for their self-indugence. I'm just the obisite of McCain-Fiengold - get the government out of election money and let the candidates raise it however they want. Because I don't want some nut ( I think Grimis covered who they are) getting MY money to indulge themselves.

    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie

    So while a third party may not win the election, it can gather enough votes to receive the money that will allow it to grow (for a very recent example, just look at the Reform Party and its growth during the 1990s).


and isn't it doing awesome without Jesse and Ross?

    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie

    Second, look at the three most recent U.S. Presidential elections (1992, 1996 and 2000). Can you honestly say that third party candidates (Perot in 1992 and 1996, Nader and Buchanan in 2000) did not significantly affect those elections?
    [\quote]

    It affected those elections EXACTLY as if those voters didn't vote at all. It changed nothing in this country.

      Originally posted by Downtown Bookie


      Finally, there is a point that I alluded to in my prior post. U.S. voters allow themselves to be deluded into thinking that they need not bother to vote because their vote doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, the majority of people eligible to vote in the U.S. don't vote, and the main reason why they don't vote is because they have become disenchanted with the two-party system, and believe the lie that they are powerless to change it.


    Clearly, the majority don't vote, but there's no clear data on why. I think it's closer to "They're comfortable and know that whoever they vote for is going to do the job because they know that neither the Dems not the Reps are gonna put a nutball in there (Ross Perot, I am lookin' at YOU!).

    Ah, we disagree, but that's ok.

    Oh, and Eileen? No, she wasn't going to get 10 votes unless she was very lucky. Geeks (and I was on the cusp of geekness, but not officially one) didn't go to the prom in my day. I heard she got 7 votes. Not bad, I thought at the time.



    Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 59 min.
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.24
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The four "Big Name" third party candidates previously mentioned are all nuts. Nader is running to sell more books.


Selling books makes you nuts? Stephen King must belong in a looney bin.



Perception is reality
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Incidentally, the Deparment of Education should be abolished for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we spend billions are year to see bureaucrats in Washington dictate top down to local school districts...

That's why No Child Left Behind was such a bad idea...



ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.80
I wouldn't mind seeing the department of education abolished either. One, the department hasn't and won't accomplish anything so it's a waste of money. Two, federal government has certain roles, but so do state and local governments. Education is one of the roles for those governments, and they shouldn't be allowed to shirk that responsibility on any level by being bailed out by the federal government (in both funding and standard setting). It is up to us to hold the local guys accountable for the quality of our schools, and if we don't, it's our own damn fault.

But this another one of those discussions, like potential flat tax proposal, that can be fun to talk about but ultimately doesn't matter. The department of education will never be abolished, if for no other reason than it is called the department of education. And nobody wants to be seen as being against education.



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Thread rated: 5.94
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Nature asks 15 questions of each candidate
Next thread: "Iraq War Illegal" says Annan
Previous thread: In spite of himself
(1102 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Not everyone that has AIDS knows it and not everyone that has AIDS gets it through unprotected sex.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Something we didn't know: Bush and Kerry both liarsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.191 seconds.