| Litmus test for liberals [message #106522] |
Sat, 07 August 2004 15:15   |
setstyle
Messages: 101
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Such sense I haven't read in a while. I disagree with Bush on too many issues to consider voting for him, yet Kerry seems to me so vague I have no clue for what he stands. For those simple reasons I support Nader, if anyone, since he clearly communicates ideas I agree with. If people fear voting for third-party candidates and go with Kerry just to defeat Bush I don't feel they can stand for much of anything either.
your = possessive adjective
you're = you + are
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106562] |
Sun, 08 August 2004 00:48 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
|
In other words, the two-party system needs to go. This will allow candidates to appeal to more specific groups of people instead of doing everything possible to get the middle votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106699] |
Mon, 09 August 2004 09:57 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I, too, disagree with the two-party system, and I don't think ANY law, amendment, or policy should EVER make reference to party affiliation. So few people would actually fall completely in line with a party's stance.
For example, I agree with Bush's stance on issues and except for a few youthful incidents, he's a stellar character. That's why I'm voting for him in November.
I not only don't know where Kerry stands on the issues, but he's basing his entire campaign on the 4 months he spent in Vietnam, then gets all pissy and combative when confronted with what he did in those 4 months.
I am not a Democrat. I do not believe in their ideals. I disagree with the Republicans on the gay marriage issue and I'm undecided on stem cell research, but everything else I can agree with.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106818] |
Mon, 09 August 2004 16:03 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
So that anyone can be voted for (which is fair) but saves room on the actual ballot...
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| foolios [message #106901] |
Tue, 10 August 2004 04:34 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Have any of you actually heard of the electoral college?
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106933] |
Tue, 10 August 2004 11:32 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Doitle |
Larry the Cable Guy 23%
|
Git-r-done!!!!!!! 
| SEAL |
It creates a situation where one American's vote is worth more the another American's vote. It has the potential to create a situation where, nationally, more people will vote for President X, but President Y will win the election (ie. election 2000). Talk about fairness, eh?
|
Tell me, would it be more fair to people living in Arkansas, Wyoming, and other "fly-over" states if the elections were controlled by only those living in high-population areas? Some cities have a higher population than entire states, so what candidate is going to care about what the "rural rednecks" think about politics if there aren't any votes in it for them? They'd all be going after the votes in the urban areas and pander to their interests while the people living in rural areas get the shaft.
The electoral college gives the people living in low population areas a fair representation in the presidential election.
| Quote: |
There have been several attempts to get rid of the electoral system, but they have obviously failed.
|
Thank god they did, too.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106938] |
Tue, 10 August 2004 11:54 |
 |
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
You have a point, but that seems to be the only real advantage--one that is outweighed by several disadantages. Besides, if all votes were equal, it would be in the candidates best interest to visit as many places as possible, and not just areas with high electoral points.
My vote is worth less than someone living, for example, in California. I don't see how that is fair. Period. If a state wins by literally 1 vote, than every vote for the losing candidate is an absolute waste. It is because of this that we end up with presidents whom the majority of Americans did not vote for, but are in office anyway.
A solution to both my side and your side of the argument would be to give electoral points proportionatly to what percent the candidate won by, for every state. For example, if Bush wins in state X, which has 10 electoral points, by getting 60% of the vote, he will only get 6 points (60% of 10).
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106948] |
Tue, 10 August 2004 14:02 |
 |
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Pak |
As for Kerry He Isn't President Material, Hes a Flip Flop.
Bush is More Straight Forth President You Know His Agenda.
|
I love when uninformed people speak their mind, they look so comically foolish. Why do you think Kerry is a flop-flop? Because the media has used that exact same phrase so many times, you are unable to create your own opinions. You're like a mina-bird. "Kerry is a flip-flop. CAW"
Bush is much more of a flip-flop than Kerry will ever be,
Bush said he would impose Steel Tarriffs even though they were illegal.
~Bush repealed steel tarriffs because of Billions of dollars in sanctions leveled at the US.
Bush said Gay Marriage was a "State Issue" and would never pass policy on it.
~Bush asks congress for a Constitutional Ammendment prohibiting gay marriage.
Bush says that he will not create a Secretary of Homeland Security as Democrats request, because it is "unnecesary"
~Bush creates a Secretary of Homeland Security.
Bush promised to do away with "Nation Building", saying we have no business in doing that.
~Bush asks for 150 Billion Dollars to rebuild Iraq.
Bush says he will not endorse a 9/11 commission.
~Bush endorses the 9/11 commission.
Bush says he will not appear before the 9/11 commission.
~Bush appears before the 9/11 commission.
Bush runs for election on fiscal responsibility and his ability to unite the country.
~Bush establishes a RECORD HIGH national deficit from projected surplusses, and polarizes the country to Civil War levels.
Bush imposes an Executive order titled "Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors' Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects "
~Bush awards no-bid contracts to his friends at Haliburton.
Oh I could go on and on, but you wouldn't understand as you dont actually think or form opinions from "information" or "news", you just regurgitate the latest catch-phrase from the TV and pretend to have an original thought.
If "flip-flopping" were really a problem for you, then you would be furious with GW Bush, but since you don't actually have a problem with "flip=flopping" you just want to attack Kerry, then nothing I say is going to make it through.
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106953] |
Tue, 10 August 2004 14:48 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
That argument got blasted on the pits, so it's gotta find new legs here I guess.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #106965] |
Tue, 10 August 2004 16:10 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
That argument got blasted on the pits, so it's gotta find new legs here I guess.
|
Well, if it was inherently wrong enough to be blasted bad on the Pitts, then why don't you post what those people said here?
Oh, and did anyone see Bill O' Lielly get handed his head on Meet the Press by Paul Krugman? No, you won't be able to see the entire thing on Fox. I suggest reading the transcript, because whenever Krugman says something, Bill O' Dumbass starts screaming, and you often can't hear it.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
