Undemocratic Democrats

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by vidcc@15 August 2004 - 19:43
i agree that there is political games being played in NJ. by both sides. The same would happen if the situation were reversed. I do think there should be an election, but i feel it should take place at the same time as the presidential election...purely for cost and efficiency.

Huh, I didn't even know there were 2 sides in NJ...
The one or two republicans there are just calling for the Dems to quit playing games and hold an election; Thats hardly playing games.
You might be right about situations reversed though.

[ziggyjuarez]

[vidcc]

Originally posted by ziggyjuarez@15 August 2004 - 15:20

Not enough threads to spam in the lounge to get your star count up ziggy?

[Darth Sushi]

Originally posted by ziggyjuarez@15 August 2004 - 22:20

post whore

[SuperJude™]

Al Gore lost because he could not even carry his own state, that is my belief, it should never have come to Florida.

I do not like the "Don't vote for Nader!" thought of democrats. I mean one should vote for who they believe in. One should not expect others to change their beliefs because your weak candidate can't pull it off themselves.

Frankly maybe some of Nader's views on emmisions more closely mirror my views. I will go do far as to say at least I know who Nader is and what he stands for, the same for Bush.

Once again another example of how the Democratic party and their supporters lose people like me. Hey man I wanna vote Nader Bush or Kerry that is MY damn decision, and if Kerry loses because people voted for Nader, too bad try having opinions next time.

-SJ™

[clocker]

Originally posted by Darth Sushi@15 August 2004 - 14:13


Conspiracy theorists believe Nader is being funded by Bush lovers hoping for a repeat of the last elections. Who knows?

That is hardly a "conspiracy theory" it is a fact.
Many staunch Republicans ( Ben Stein to name but one) have donated to the Nader campaign with the express intent of diverting votes from Kerry.

[Darth Sushi]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@16 August 2004 - 18:33
I do not like the "Don't vote for Nader!" thought of democrats. I mean one should vote for who they believe in. One should not expect others to change their beliefs because your weak candidate can't pull it off themselves.

What about the "Don't vote for Nader" by the Green party? You know, Nader's own party! Then there's the "Don't vote for Kerry" by the GOP. Also, you have "Don't vote for Bush" by Democrats. It's not a new concept. In fact it's democracy in action because only just free speech. "Don't vote for Nader," is not a felony yet the media (the conservative ones at least) seems to focus only on Democrats ignoring the Green Party. Nobody is going to switch parties because some Democrats said "Don't vote for Nader," for I know you're just a conservation hoping for a Bush win. The real question should be "why is Nader running when he cannot get on several states ballots because he waited too late to apply?" Why run for President when half the population cannot even vote for him? Why? If lots of people cannot even vote for Nader, then the phrase "Don't vote for Nader" is a moot point. Once again, it's a moot point. If you're offended by a moot phrase uttered by some Democrats, the you're simply a Republican, not a Democrat or undecided voter on the fence.

[bigboab]

I know its really not 'my election'*, but does it matter who gets in. They all seem to be corrupt, irrespective of party or country. Those that are not corrupt, get corrupted or shot.

Governments and committees are elcted by the people to represent themselves.







* A wee Chinese girl I know told me recently that I(Me) dont get them anymore. I dont know what she means.

[Darth Sushi]

Originally posted by bigboab@16 August 2004 - 19:18
I know its really not 'my election'*, but does it matter who gets in. They all seem to be corrupt, irrespective of party or country. Those that are not corrupt, get corrupted or shot.

Governments and committees are elcted by the people to represent themselves.

It matters. Al Gore would not have never invaded Iraq. Personally, I'm voting for the candidate who will do the least amount of damage.

[bigboab]

Originally posted by Darth Sushi+16 August 2004 - 18:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Darth Sushi @ 16 August 2004 - 18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bigboab@16 August 2004 - 19:18
I know its really not &#39;my election&#39;*, but does it matter who gets in. They all seem to be corrupt, irrespective of party or country. Those that are not corrupt, get corrupted or shot.

Governments and committees are elcted by the people to represent themselves.

It matters. Al Gore would not have never invaded Iraq. Personally, I&#39;m voting for the candidate who will do the least amount of damage. [/b][/quote]
Thats the trouble Darth. None of them ever invade anywhere. They get our kids to do it for them.