| Subject: Re: ELECTION 2004 |
Author:
James
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:50:38 03/24/04 Wed
In reply to:
Crackpot
's message, "Re: ELECTION 2004" on 19:42:57 03/21/04 Sun
>Well, it was a typical Florida election in the first
>place only this time they got caught. I think the main
>problem among middle class democrats and republicans
>is that they feel as if there's an actually difference
>between the two. Even Mr. Junta man himself, George W.
>Bush, is making fun of Kerry for voting "yes" on
>everything Bush asked for, but suddenly Kerry is
>against everything he gave Bush a blank check to do in
>the first place. This only furthers my point.
>Democrats are only yuppie-fied versions of
>Republicans. Get the Libertarians or somebody from the
>Reform Party to run the ballots next time.
Eh... I don't know about all that. But I agree that Republicans and Democrats are about the same. Both big spenders, just on different things. But look you can't get independants to run the ballots because the local governments are in control of those districts. Therefor they appoint/hire the people to run the ballots. You can't legislate that some indifferent person run the ballots because that's just more freedom taken away from the people.
>
>While Gore complained and moaned about the happenings
>in southern Florida he paid no attention, for some
>reason, to what went down in northern Florida where
>the police were blocking off streets in selected
>neighborhoods and asking people for five pieces of
>identification, which most were black. You know, this
>time I don't think it's a racists thing as much as
>knowing that a majority of black folks do vote
>democrat, for some reason, so a lot of them couldn't
>get to where they were going to vote. Even if some
>managed to get five pieces of identification they
>somehow winded up on a "convicted felons list". While
>it's bad enough that their isn't too many differences
>between democrats and republicans, check out what our
>democracy really looks like.
You know I agree that it's sad. But this was not some conspiracy to get Bush elected. And look it's not even important in the long run. Your votes don't have to count towards anything anymore. The electoral college is what ultimately decides who wins the presidency.
>
>No, for instance; if I owned a business that was in a
>deep scandal or if I had stock in a business that were
>involved in a scandal, I'd tell my media outlets to
>nix the stories involving any scandals. Which media
>outlets does Intel own?. In America, the government is
>supposed to be "by the people, for the people". With
>that said, the media, the news, is supposed to be our
>forth branch of government that keeps the other three
>in check. Even in a candid debate on C-Span, people
>from many news outlets were complaining that they can
>no longer cover the stories they'd like to because
>they aren't allowed, as dictated by the corporation
>controlling the airwaves. Keep in mind, if you're
>liking Bush, you must have loved Clinton.
I hated Clinton and I'm wising up to Bush. But you see it is perfectly acceptable for me to have a corporation own a media outlet. It is NOT acceptable to me for the government run the news. It's against the free speech amendment. Corporations owning the news is fine by me. That is free speech. If the corporations want to bias the media that's fine. I don't have to believe what they say. I probably won't anyway.
>
>I don't even think they were formed yet. However,
>America and Saddam were more or less friends
>throughout the eighties. Even when he gassed his own
>people we continued to subsidize his military efforts
>and continued selling him weapons. And this is from UN
>records, mind you. So, going into Iraq now simply
>makes us look hypocritical.
Oh yeah, they have been around since '97. Well I agree about Saddam. He is our fuck up. Now things are even more fucked up so we had to oust him. Yeah he bit us in the ass. Well each administation did what they THOUGHT was best. Sometimes fucking with other countries is just a bad idea.
>
>No, I was connecting the two. As William Kristol, Dick
>Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld sent a document to Clinton
>citing they wanted Saddam out of power in '97. I mean,
>this was all over the news (even mainstream) during
>the better half of last year.
Well sure it was. I mean Clinton even signed into policy that removing Saddam was a priority.
>
>
>Explain.
Sometimes not fucking with countries leads us ultimatly into War. Look at WWI & WWII. We let stuff ride until it was in our face. Then we got put into a position where we HAD to respond, killing hundreds of thousands of men in the process. I don't like messing with other countries, but damn you know I don't like world war either. But lets say we left Saddam alone. We know he had a WMD program at one point. So he just keeps gassing kurds and maybe starts a war with someone (Israel?). Then the whole mess spreads like cancer. It is possible you know. Even likely.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 