> Well tom I just don't understand how did bush did prove he could be a good
> commender in chief simply Because he has invated two countries ?
Why O Why do people think that the only thing the President has anything to do with is invading countries? Maybe to the international community thats all you think about but theres so many domestic issues that this war is overshadowing that matters to us here and we have to take everything into consideration for this election.

> > Well tom I just don't understand how did bush did prove he could be a
> good
> > commender in chief simply Because he has invated two countries ?
> Why O Why do people think that the only thing the President has anything to do
> with is invading countries? Maybe to the international community thats all
> you think about but theres so many domestic issues that this war is
> overshadowing that matters to us here and we have to take everything into
> consideration for this election.
>

You are right. Outside US we only see the what is related to terrorist, Irak
the 9/11 report, the homeland security and stuff like that. They do talks
about other things but it does not affect us as much as international
policies.

Watchdog groups say misstatements, distortions by both candidates plague presidential race, making it difficult to separate fact from fiction

So tell us something new...

---

Account frozen...

If you compare the "lies & distortion" of Cons/Libs, Fox/CBS, Bush/Kerry, it is so overwhelmingly worse for the right-wingers. I mean, Bush lies about getting Bin Laden, the claims to go to war and kill thousands of people etc. And their analogy for "horrible Kerry lies" is he said Bush spent $200 billion on the war right now instead of the $120 billion actually spent (with $80 billion in the wings). The CBS "forgery" pales in comparisoin with the dreck like the absolutely fake Kerry Fox News article, "Swift Boat veterans" and other right-wing pablum such as "Kerry will ban the bible if elected."

It basically comes down to the worst right-wingers can come up with is "liberals are a bunch of socialist tree-huggin' hippies" --- yet the right-wingers are time and again anti-intellectual, anti-scientific xenophobes, far worse than any "animal liberation terrorist" strawman that dittoheads come up with.

And look at the news today, "Bush Claims Kerry Dangerous For World Peace." I mean, come on, how Orwellian can these as$hole Repubs get?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041004/pl_afp/us_vote_bush_041004195721

U.S. Vetoes Plan to End Israeli Operation


No comment...

I have just watched the vice president debate. I haven't heard any professional
comment yet but I think experience has spoken tonight. Opinion aside I think
Cheney showed more confidence.

> I have just watched the vice president debate. I haven't heard any
> professional
> comment yet but I think experience has spoken tonight. Opinion aside I think
> Cheney showed more confidence.
>
Yes I agree. Cheney has stated pubically that he wont try for Prez so maybe it makes things easier for him. Personally I called the first Prez debate a draw but this one I think overall Cheney did better. I like it when a candidate can quote specific facts on specific issues. Cheney is VERY knowledgable. Edwards, while being more charismatic, gravitated toward generalities. Edwards would also take half his time addressing a PREVIOUS question instead of concentrating on the question at hand. Cheney is the first candidate Ive seen who felt he said what he needed saying and declined a rebuttal. One thing above all else I felt disappointed in was somehow every domestic issue got turned into Iraq. There needs to be a debate that deals with domestic issues ONLY. If either candidate wants to make the entire campaign about Iraq then they should be running for President of Iraq.

> U.S.
> Vetoes Plan to End Israeli Operation
>
>
> No comment...
>
Was it my imagination or did Edwards imply (or state) that he would HELP the Israelis against the Palistinians?

> Was it my imagination or did Edwards imply (or state) that he would HELP the
> Israelis against the Palistinians?

Yes he did and I was surprised. Actually I thought the democrats had a more agressive
or should I say less Pro Israel politics. I am also surprised that no candidates are talking
about this issue so far. It is a crucial one. For sure Israel has the right to protect themselves
against Palistinian terrorist but they are (like they often do) going to far. Lets not forget
who has invade who here. I think as long as the Palestinian don't have their lands back and
a Palestian state created this war will just never end, and it's being one of the main source
of most Islamic terrorism we've seen so far.

It's also true that domestic questions got always somehow turned into the Irak question.
I think the next presidential debate will be exclusively for domestic and economics issue.

>
> > As a member of the AIP I'll
> > probably vote for <a> href="http://www.peroutka2004.com/">Peroutka[/url],
> > but then again maybe I'll just write in Snoopy, Mickey, or Bugs. :P
>
> I think Peroutka has my vote to.
> Don't think he'll be nominated though.
> Doesn't have the money or power but he might have the chance to win
> because he would try to revert our Government back to the way it used
> to be, The way it was intended to be.
>
And precisely what way did it "used to be"? And how do you think it was intended to be? Whatever you may think of the present administration the only way to get rid of it is to vote it out of office. That is the way it was intended to be. If you choose not to participate, not to excercise your franchise, then your opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Your obvious high moral stance rings a little hollow.

> And precisely what way did it "used to be"? And how do you think it was
> intended to be? Whatever you may think of the present administration the only
> way to get rid of it is to vote it out of office. That is the way it
> was intended to be. If you choose not to participate, not to excercise your
> franchise, then your opinion isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Your obvious
> high moral stance rings a little hollow.
>
Voting for the person one supports is exactly what democracy is about. You and I and everyone who participates should vote for the candidate who we each believe will best represent our views even if that candidate has little chance to win! Indeed, that is participation, and each person's opinion counts the same as every other person's. If you vote only for a candidate you think will win, you are doing yourself and the process a disservice; and many who think that way end up not voting and (perhaps) changing the outcome by their inaction.

There are so many Democrats who think Nader should not run--but would they complain if a Pat Robertson (type) made a try for the White House? No, they would scream bloody murder if any Republican tried to keep another "conservative" from running. You are not being democratic (little "d") if you only apply a rule when it suits the Democrats (big "D").

> Voting for the person one supports is exactly what democracy is about. You
> and I and everyone who participates should vote for the candidate who we each
> believe will best represent our views even if that candidate has little
> chance to win! Indeed, that is participation, and each person's
> opinion counts the same as every other person's. If you vote only for a
> candidate you think will win, you are doing yourself and the process a
> disservice; and many who think that way end up not voting and (perhaps)
> changing the outcome by their inaction.
>
> There are so many Democrats who think Nader should not run--but would they
> complain if a Pat Robertson (type) made a try for the White House? No, they
> would scream bloody murder if any Republican tried to keep another
> "conservative" from running. You are not being democratic (little "d") if you
> only apply a rule when it suits the Democrats (big "D").

Hi Tom

I do agree with you but it can sometimes be "dangerous" to vote for a
candidate that has no chance of being elected. That's exactly what happened
in France during last presidential election.

The French have to vote twice. The first vote is to "elect" two candidates
that will battle for the second and decisive vote. The left wing voters
although they were majoritary were not happy with their leader and their
votes got diverted everywhere (green party, communist party, extreme left,
extreme right, nationalist party, etc) The result of that, to their great surprises,
has been that the second candidates was an extremist, nationalist
extreme right, in the name of Le Pen. This guy is the best reincarnation
of hitler... It was a mistake and the left wings all united to do all they
can to avoid having such a president and they had to vote massively for
the second candidates, Chirac (right wing) who won the election with 83%

Chirac was not really popular then, Actually the only thing he has done
that the French were happy with is when he oppose to the US invasion of Irak.
Voting for your favorite candidate is surely what democracy is, but when
you know that only mister X and Y has chances to win I think it's better
to vote for the one you preffer or the one you hate less. We all know that
it will be Bush or Kerry. Voting for any other candidates is surely democratic
but it serve nothing as far as results. If your favorite candidate is really
mister Z then it's fine, but if you vote for mister Z just to protest or because
you don't like any of the two main candidates then you can throw your
vote to the trash, it's the same.

regards
Marc

-.-. --.- -.. -..- . - --... ...-- .-.-. -.-

>You and I and everyone who participates should vote for the candidate who we each
> believe will best represent our views even if that candidate has little chance
>to win!

well I did that crap in 2000, because Nader had convinced me there's not much difference between the two parties, and it wouldn't really matter who won. Well us Nader voters sure fell for that! I don't know any old Nader campaigner (I was in Philly in '00 and worked for the campaign there) that is going with Ralph or Green Party this time. Too much (more) to lose if Bush wins again.

And yes, both parties are total corporate sellouts, and the Dems are hardly the "evil commie liberals" that the fanatic Repukes claim they are. But I think it's fairly obvious by now which party drops to their knees quicker when the corporate lobbyists come calling; and who are the ones more willing to sellout American jobs/security/etc; and it's the Grand Ole Pukes. Hell, with Cheney you have the corporate lobbyist running the show. I can't imagine a slimier, more reptilian politician in my life; he makes Spiro Agnew & Richard Nixon seem like pillars of honesty & integrity.

Carl and Marc,

I thought I made my point perfectly clear when I said "You and I and everyone who participates should vote for the candidate who we each believe will best represent our views . . ." I did not say, Carl, that you should not vote for any particular candidate: my point was that in a democracy you don't stop someone from running just because you don't agree with them -- just don't vote for them. My response to Jack Lass had to do with his comment that people voting for a Libertarian candidate were not participating in the process. But indeed, it is the essence of participation to vote for the candidate of your choice. It is not "crap" to do so.

And Marc, your story about Le Pen just proves my point. If the voters in France had voted for who they thought was the best candidate rather than simply voting for anyone but the person they were unhappy with, maybe the problem would not have happened. But Le Pen must have had a sufficient number of people who believed in him, and voted for him, to get as far in the election as he did. It sounds to me like the system worked, but perhaps not the way many would have wanted it to turn out. The solution may be to change the rules of voting, but it is not a valid solution (it is undemocratic) to tell someone not to participate, or to only participate the way "I" want you to.

The democracy you folks describe is one of convenience. As long as it results in what you want, then it's fine -- hanging chads and the Electoral College were never a problem until Bush won. Multiple candidates on the ballot are just fine, until it appears that one candidate has enough support to affect the results (this excuse for why the Democrats lost in 2000 assumes that large numbers of the third-party voters would have voted for the Democrat -- an unproven assumption).

Take another look at my post and the post by Jack Lass. I was not the one who said that voting for a third-party candidate was not participation. I was not the one who said that the opinion of a person who does just that, is not worth "a bucket of warm spit". Get a grip: vote for who YOU think will do the best job, otherwise you have given away your precious right to some bully who thinks he or she knows better.

P.S. I have tried very hard to make my point in a nonpartisan way, but the best examples I can think of, that is, whining about the democratic process, seem to relate back to the presidential election of 2000; and the whining, of course, is done by the Party that lost. Had the election gone the other way, it might be the Republicans making these same complaints.

> Take another look at my post and the post by Jack Lass. I was not the one who
> said that voting for a third-party candidate was not participation. I was not
> the one who said that the opinion of a person who does just that, is not worth
> "a bucket of warm spit". Get a grip: vote for who YOU think will do the best
> job, otherwise you have given away your precious right to some bully who
> thinks he or she knows better.

That pretty much describes the current "two-party" system in America. Each local organization goes out of their way to discourage other (parties) from organizing by using the argument that, "you're just wasting your vote".

The only wasted vote is one not cast.

> The only wasted vote is one not cast.
>
>
Except if youre not in the majority in your State. Then the Electoral College "wastes" it for you. If I vote 3rd party then I know my individual vote wont count since the President is determined by EC vote, and that is determined by the States majority vote. So that puts us 3rd party people in a pickle. Do we stick to our guns and vote for the candidate we really want or knowing that only the dems/reps have the EC votes instead vote for the "lessor of two evils?"

> > The only wasted vote is one not cast.
> >
> >
> Except if youre not in the majority in your State. Then the Electoral College
> "wastes" it for you. If I vote 3rd party then I know my individual vote wont
> count since the President is determined by EC vote, and that is determined by
> the States majority vote. So that puts us 3rd party people in a pickle. Do
> we stick to our guns and vote for the candidate we really want or knowing that
> only the dems/reps have the EC votes instead vote for the "lessor of two
> evils?"
>
I don't agree with your philosophy. Let's say, 35% vote for "A", 33% vote for "B" and 32% vote for "C". In that case, all of the electoral votes go to "A", but who's to say that those who voted for "B" and "C" wasted their votes? When you start playing games about voting for a person you don't like because you don't like somebody else more, you get the result that Marc was talking about in France. In Hawai‘i we have a closed primary, which means you must vote for primary candidates of only one party. I think it is wrong, but many people will take a ballot for a party other than their own and vote for the weaker candidate, so that their party's candidate will have a better chance in the general election. That is clearly unfair. But that system, like the Electoral College is the way that voting has been structured, and unless Hawai‘i changes its law, or the United States changes the Constitution, we are stuck with it (them). In neither case does it justify telling people to vote for someone they do not actually support.

[Edit:] As for wasting votes, any candidate who wins an election but not the popular vote is on notice that there are a majority out there who disagree with their view. That does count for something, but it should not give rise to charges that the elected official was "illegally" elected, or that the official is not the holder of the office. It's easier to say this by noting that many people say Bush is not "their" President--but that is wrong, he is their President until he gets voted out or they give up their US citizenship. Given their ignorance of the process, the latter would be OK with me.