VectorLinux
October 21, 2014, 11:32:19 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: One More Time Around (For Nader)  (Read 3420 times)
gacl
Vectorite
***
Posts: 218



« on: September 09, 2008, 10:18:47 am »

I know that politics and religion are touchy subjects but the current presidential race (US) has become so pathetic that i just _have_ to support this guy:

C-SPAN Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE06O7lZuPo

C-SPAN Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5DfYNkBqHs&feature=related

C-SPAN Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuORP0MJBZo&feature=related

C-SPAN Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBk4jTMgQLw&feature=related

This Week With George Stephanopoulos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3l4uDi4_xQ&feature=related

CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHYNCgcSXnQ&feature=related

Meet The Press Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_O3MNJcls8

Meet The Press Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buMaW34iahs&feature=related

Ralph Nader On Technology: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ralph_Nader_Technology.htm


"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." --Plato


Gus
Logged

“Our very lives depend on the ethics of strangers, and most of us are always strangers to other people.” -- Bill Moyers
caitlyn
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2876


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2008, 10:24:06 am »

Gus:  It is truly a shame Nader is running.  He is destroying any credibility he once had for his work on consumer protection.  His views on foreign policy are ignorant at best and dangerous at worst.  He pulled 3.6% of the vote in 2000 and in the process denied Al Gore the Presidency.  We've been stuck with 8 years of George W. Bush as a result.  The only thing Nader does is help the Republicans. 

American politics is pathetic?  I find it pathetic that anyone would support Nader.

Like you said, touchy subject, but you did ask for it.
Logged

eMachines EL-1300G desktop, 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e CPU, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6150 SE video
CentOS 6.5 (will try VL64-7.1 soon)

Toshiba Satellite A135-S4727,  Intel Pentium T2080 / 1.73 GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel GMA 950

HP Mini 110 netbook, 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 2GB RAM, Intel 950 video, VL 7.1
gacl
Vectorite
***
Posts: 218



« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2008, 10:54:00 am »

Well, i guess we are polar opposites. I think is great that _anybody_ is opposing the Democrat/Republican parties (party?). Is a contest of corporations. Both parties receive millions from corporations and both cater to them. Ever since Obama was nominated he's been dropping support for issues all around: He no longer opposes the Cuban embargo, no longer supports universal health care, he voted for FISA, and so on.

What part of his foreign policy is bad? Getting out of Iraq? Reducing the military budget? The Palestine issue?

The Democrats lost 2000 because of Nader? How about the other parties that also racked up votes? How about the massive voter fraud: The purging of voting lists, the mysterious behaviour of the electronic voting machines, the refusal of the Florida government to investigate, and so on. What about 2004? What about 2008? (McCain is polling higher now) I think that the implied message is that somehow any third party is illegitimate.
Logged

“Our very lives depend on the ethics of strangers, and most of us are always strangers to other people.” -- Bill Moyers
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2008, 07:40:21 pm »

Third parties aren't illegitimate, just foolish. They take votes away from the two major party candidates. If the party they're taking votes from is the one with views closer to your own and as a result, the other party gets in, you've shot yourself in the foot--and the country, too.

Nader can't get elected. Period. Even if he did, what could he change? The US isn't a dictatorship (until Bush, anyway). Without the Congressional votes to get whatever Nader wanted passed, he couldn't do a thing.

Do you look at national polls? Half the electorate OPPOSES what Nader wants. What about them? You have to have *enough* public support in order to do anything, and Nader doesn't have it.

The idea that both parties are the same is nonsense. Elect McCain and the Supreme Court will have an unbreakable majority of far-right Originalists--clones of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Kiss habeas corpus, restrictions on torture, separation of church and state, and Roe v. Wade good-bye. Corporations will *really* rule if this bunch has its way. McCain has already said he'd appoint justices like them. And don't forget all the District Courts and Courts of Appeals. They are already loaded with right-wing Republican appointees. For reasons of the judiciary ALONE, McCain *must* be defeated or the country will suffer for generations. Bush will be dead and buried but we'll still likely be enduring Roberts and Alito.

The Republicans have filibustered over 90 pieces of legislation a Nader supporter would probably have approved of. Then people wonder why nothing gets done! You have to have 60 votes to break a filibuster; there are 51 Democrats in the Senate now, and not all of them would vote to break a filibuster. Hence the reason good laws can't get passed.

McCain lies. He is not a maverick (not with a 90% record of voting for legislation Bush wanted and voting with the majority of Republicans 81% of the time). He has picked a nut job as a running mate who did NOT tell the Congress "thanks but no thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere. McCain is lying when he says she sold the governor's private plane on Ebay and made a profit. It's true the state did put the plane up on Ebay (as had been done before Palin came along when the state wanted to get rid of other property). However, the plane didn't sell on Ebay and it was taken off. It was later sold through an airplane broker--at hundreds of thousands of dollars less than Murkowski paid for it.

I don't understand those voters who can't stand Bush but plan to vote for McCain. McCain has endorsed and promised to continue *every one* of Bush's policies that so many voters dislike. So why would anyone who's not a Bush groupie vote for more of the same with McCain?

I like Obama. It will be a pleasure to vote for him. But even if I didn't like him, I'd have to go with the lesser of two evils. In my youth I might have been more inclined to vote for the one I really liked even if he had no chance of winning. But at my age and having voted in so many elections, I've learned that if you have to choose the lesser of two evils, you do because otherwise the greater of two evils may get in.
--GrannyGeek

P.S. Obama most definitely does support universal access to health care. I don't know where you got the idea he has changed his mind on that.
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
thecdn
Member
*
Posts: 31


« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2008, 04:28:54 am »

Third parties aren't illegitimate, just foolish. They take votes away from the two major party candidates. If the party they're taking votes from is the one with views closer to your own and as a result, the other party gets in, you've shot yourself in the foot--and the country, too......
P.S. Obama most definitely does support universal access to health care. I don't know where you got the idea he has changed his mind on that.

Excellent post GrannyGeek. As a Canadian who has lived in the US for the last 10 years the Bush regime has been a horror to go through. How any thinking person could consider four more years of republican rule is beyond me....

The thought of the Supreme Court in the the hands of McSame and his minions is horrifying. There goes abortion rights, there goes civil rights, come on in and take over the country and the environment big business.

And Palin, the love affair with her is unbelieveable. A right wing religious zealot who thinks abstinence only education is great (worked fine in her family), abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape or incest, creationism should be taught in schools. Goodbye democracy, hello theocracy.

The democrats better start calling out these loons and kicking some butt soon. Because if McSame wins that puts Palin in prime position for pres next time. Then the christian taliban will really be running the show.
Logged
caitlyn
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2876


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2008, 09:24:12 am »

Both parties receive millions from corporations and both cater to them.

True enough but read what Granny Geek wrote.  The two parties aren't the same.  Obama and the Democrats aren't in the pocket of big oil, for example, the way McCain and Palin are.

Quote
Ever since Obama was nominated he's been dropping support for issues all around: He no longer opposes the Cuban embargo, no longer supports universal health care, he voted for FISA, and so on.

I think you're confused about some of Obama's positions here.  His health care plan was *NEVER* universal because it didn't have mandates.  His position has not changed.  That was one of the reasons I supported first Edwards and then Clinton.  They both lost in the primaries.  At least Obama, as Granny Geek points out, is for universal access to health care.  McCain is for eliminating tax incentives for employers to provide healthcare.  If McCain's ideas became law the number of uninsured Americans would skyrocket.  Under Obama the number would shrink dramatically.

Are you confusing FISA with warrantless wiretapping?  FISA, which passed in 1978, insures judicial oversight on warrants for wiretapping.   President Bush ignored FISA and violated the law with his program.  FISA and the court it sets up is a *good thing* in that it provides a legal check on the executive, a check President Bush opposed.  AFAIK Obama does support FISA but does not support and did not vote to support the President's position.

Quote
What part of his foreign policy is bad? Getting out of Iraq? Reducing the military budget? The Palestine issue?

All of the above.  Yes, I want the U.S. out of Iraq, but I want it done in a responsible way in cooperation with the Iraqi government.  That's precisely what Obama is proposing.  It is neither possible nor advisable to just pull out as fast as possible.  You can't move 145,000 troops overnight.  The result of an unplanned, overly rapid exit would be chaos and an Iranian takeover through proxies like the Mahdi Army.  The Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawal.  Obama wants a phased pullout over 16 months.  McCain wants to stay in over the objections of the Iraqis for the long term.  Obama is the only one who makes sense on this issue.

I don't think you can massively reduce the military budget the way Nader wants to do either.  In case you didn't notice things aren't going so well in Afghanistan.  Unlike Iraq, where the U.S. engaged in an unjustified invasion of a foreign country based on false justifications, in Afghanistan we are fighting people who attacked the U.S. and killed thousands of Americans.  There is broad international support and U.S. forces, while leading the NATO effort, account for only about a third of the troops.  I agree with both Obama and McCain that in the case of Afghanistan we need to increase, not decrease, military operations.  We may also be facing a new, aggressive Russia as demonstrated by the invasion of Georgia. 

The world is dangerous.  We do need a strong military deterrent.  Where Bush went wrong was first in invading Iraq and second in displaying an utter lack of understanding of the culture and history of that country, losing any chance of peace in the process.

"The Palestine issue" displays your bias quite clearly.  Yes, Nader's virulent anti-Israel stand guarantees I could never vote for him.  That's not a surprising position for a Lebanese-American politician but you can't expect me, an Israeli-American voter to support it.

Quote
The Democrats lost 2000 because of Nader? How about the other parties that also racked up votes?

What other parties?  Nader received 3.6 percent of the vote.  All the other fringe parties combined for 0.3 percent.  Nader received 2.3% in Florida, a state which decided the election and which Bush won by 529 votes if memory serves.  Nader also cost Gore the state of Oregon.  In addition, the remaining fringe parties were far right.  Buchanan, who finished fourth, took votes from Bush, not Gore.  Yes, Nader was responsible for costing Gore the election.

Quote
How about the massive voter fraud: The purging of voting lists, the mysterious behaviour of the electronic voting machines, the refusal of the Florida government to investigate, and so on.

Most of what you are charging is unproven or disproven.  The Florida vote was recounted by a number of press organizations.  The results were always close (<600 votes) and in every case but one showed a narrow victory for Bush. 

Quote
What about 2004?

I doubt Bush would have been the Republican nonminee if he had lost in 2000.  In addition, Gore would have been running for reelection as an incumbent so Kerry would never have been the Democratic nominee.  We can't know what 2004 would have been like if Bush never became President.  I did volunteer in the Kerry campaign and I can tell you first hand that it was incredibly poorly run.

Quote
What about 2008? (McCain is polling higher now)

We'll see.  I personally think McCain will win largely because there are enough racists left in the U.S. to vote against Obama.  I hope I'm completely wrong about this.

Quote
I think that the implied message is that somehow any third party is illegitimate.

I volunteered in the Anderson campaign in 1980.  I know how much the system is stacked against a third party.  I'd like to see a truly strong third party candidate come along and shake up the system.  I really would.  Nader is not the person to do it.

If you vote for Nader instead of Obama you are effectively voting for McCain.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 09:29:54 am by caitlyn » Logged

eMachines EL-1300G desktop, 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e CPU, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6150 SE video
CentOS 6.5 (will try VL64-7.1 soon)

Toshiba Satellite A135-S4727,  Intel Pentium T2080 / 1.73 GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel GMA 950

HP Mini 110 netbook, 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 2GB RAM, Intel 950 video, VL 7.1
bigpaws
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1856


« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2008, 10:28:55 am »

Ok My turn,

First I am enjoying this post, no big name calling and trying for facts. So hey
I figured why not jump in.

FISA was never an issue, it was the granting of immunity for the few telecos' that
followed the orders without a warrant. Obama in Feb. stated he was against that.
In July he voted for it.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html

Then we have Biden not a strong choice imo, but he actually voted against the above
mentioned bill. Biden imo has some strange voting as well in his past. Neither have shown
any type of really strong voting on one side or the other.

McCain and Palin what a media stunt (it might work). The interesting facts that are being seen
about Palin and her history in power surely goes towards the big boys club. Her stances on
religion and abortion are off the charts. McCain does not appear to be interested in much of
a change. Since of course Blackwater and company are in good spirits with the Bush administration
it does not appear to change. When did the US start sub contracting militia, why was Blackwater in
La. ? Never heard those questions being asked.

As far as either party I care for none. As far as having both parties nominations actually detaining
protestors without  a real cause, how can that be forgiven? The Republicans went further but the
Democrats were not far behind. Neither party in my opinion are interested in the constitution or
individual rights. The talk is good the actions do not stand up to scrutiny for either party.

If you mention the buzz words today bomb,terrorists, sex offenders everyone gets up into arms.
The FAA and Homeland security, under the Bush Administration has crippled travel. Those
actions have escalated in so many other areas it is not funny. No one is allowed a mistake. The
US justice system is charging more people for smaller offenses that soon everyone will have  a
criminal record.

The thoughts that a third party is taking votes from one of the really two party system does not
hold much water. There are many people who will vote for a third party and never vote for one
of the main liners. How does that give votes to either one of the other parties? I for one would
love to vote NOA (None of the above) in which my vote counts. The opinion that not voting denies
anyone a voice is wrong. Why does everyone have to vote? To have a forced vote to be counted
by someone that really care less about any the candidates, might just make them pull the first lever
without regard to the name. Wouldn't that then make a possible election suspect?

Food for thought:

A person normally carries a pocket knife for cutting things like string, maybe has a screwdriver
on it as well. When in school they never carry it. Then one day while in a rush the pocket knife
is forgotten, now the person is in school. Almost all schools have a zero tolerance policy. So what
is the person to do? Turn the pocket knife? There are two ways this would play out. The first would be
to take the pocket knife to a teacher or principle and the person get a minor lecture to remember to
leave it at home. The lesson is being taught. The real reaction is that the police are called, the person
is suspended if not expelled. No chance for explaination, or remorse. The second action would be to
hide the pocket knife until school is over. The second action would of course have the same results
as the first.

This tend is in place and happening everyday. Think about what has changed to allow these types of
events today. Anyone that feels that the tragedies of today are preventable, are mistaken. Guns and
knives still appear in court rooms, even after a metal detector. The same for any public place.

I do hope this post continues in a constructive manner. This is certainly a hot topic since it has alot
personal involvement. Sorry about the length as well.

Bigpaws
Logged
gacl
Vectorite
***
Posts: 218



« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2008, 11:21:35 am »

If you think that _less_ choice is good then believe that if you want to but i don't. I know that Nader won't win but i'm voting because i want my message to be heard. And my message is the Nader platform. I think what you are trying to say is that you have to give up your own ideas and go with what the majority wants but i've never been a sheep. If i did that i would betray myself.

I guess you're right about age; i'm still in my twenties. I'm not ready yet to be hopeless (cynic?).

Obama says that he wants to make health care _affordable_ which is not the same thing as universal health care. When i think universal health care i think of Japan, the UK, Canada, and so on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNcIhfPC3D0

By the way if his plan was never universal then he should have never called it that (flip-flop?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4znVmXu4Y

By the way he now supports "some" offshore drilling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr9o1sTuhg8

What i meant by FISA i meant the immunity given to the telecommunication companies:

http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=6680

About Iraq: Does anybody really believe that the US, the biggest consumer of oil in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption), will forfeit control of a country
with one of the largest oil reserves in the world? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_in_order). Will the industrial-military complex allow such a thing?

The purging of democrat voters in Florida was real:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast

The Diebold machines used in Florida (and more than half of the states) are easily hackable:

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/09/23/bev_harris/index.html

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=31&contentid=3039

Not that they need an outsider to do the dirty job. This is proprietary software which means that the software can't be independently audited. And yes, votes were discarded (thousands for Gore in 2000). Note how most of these "malfunctions" are stacked against Democrats:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/Dieboldinthenews.pdf

"We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it." --Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Logged

“Our very lives depend on the ethics of strangers, and most of us are always strangers to other people.” -- Bill Moyers
gacl
Vectorite
***
Posts: 218



« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2008, 11:33:18 am »

By the way, not that being a sheep is bad. I mean, they give us clothing, meat, and so on. . .
Logged

“Our very lives depend on the ethics of strangers, and most of us are always strangers to other people.” -- Bill Moyers
Lyn
Vectorian
****
Posts: 651



« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2008, 01:31:32 pm »

As an outsider to the USA I have never understood why Universal Health Care is an issue, its something that most of the West thinks of as a human right.  We are celebrating 60 years of the National Health Service in the UK and life without it would be unimaginable.  There is a consensus that its a good thing, though some differences on how it should be administered exists, no one wants it abolished.
Logged
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2008, 02:39:16 pm »

I know that Nader won't win but i'm voting because i want my message to be heard. And my message is the Nader platform.

And who's going to hear your message? Nader has run for President four times from 1996 on and he sort of ran in 1992. The most votes he got was in 2000. Have you seen his ideas penetrating the mainstream? Are they hot topics of discussion on Sunday interview shows or in broad circulation newspapers?

Quote
I think what you are trying to say is that you have to give up your own ideas and go with what the majority wants

Not at all. But you have to decide if you want these ideas to bring about social change or you just want to feel good that you've been true to your ideals and the rest of society can go to you-know-where. Getting ideas accepted takes a lot of hard work and we may not see success in our lifetimes. Look how long slavery was around, and after slavery ended, legal segregation, share cropping, literacy tests, and poll taxes took up where slavery left off. Another hundred years went by before the end of legal segregation, then nearly 50 years before a major party dared run an African-American for the highest office in the land. And even now, there is a real possibility that Obama may lose because of racial prejudice that people would not admit to openly.

If you want change, you won't get it by voting for a lost cause. You need to influence hearts and minds by making a good case for your views on issues, talking with your friends and co-workers, writing op-eds, participating in online forums frequented by a variety of people, not just those who agree with you. Run for office on the local level. You can't expect to start at the top. Settle for small steps, realizing that small steps are better than no steps, or steps backward.

Quote
Obama says that he wants to make health care _affordable_ which is not the same thing as universal health care. When i think universal health care i think of Japan, the UK, Canada, and so on.

And how do you think you'd get such a health care system enacted? Democrats have been trying for 60 years to broaden health care coverage so that everyone can receive necessary care regardless of income.  *EVERY* attempt has met with failure. The Republicans always resort to calling such plans "socialized medicine," "government-run health care," "government bureaucracy." These words scare large numbers of the population and once the folks get riled up, support for universal health care evaporates.

You were probably too young to remember, but the last time there was a serious attempt to move toward universal coverage was in the early years of the Clinton administration. So what killed it? "Harry and Louise" ads. This fictional couple sat around their kitchen table discussing how the government would take over their health care (false), they couldn't keep their doctor (false), Washington bureaucrats would make their health decisions (false), and the whole thing would raise their taxes (maybe true but their health insurance costs would go down). The majority of voters were dumb enough to fall for it, much to the delight of the Republican Party! Then there are these widespread but false beliefs that the American health system is the best in the world. They're false because in just about every study of national health outcomes, the US is not near the top. Countries with universal health care are.

If Obama wins and announces a plan for mandatory health coverage financed by taxes, his plan would go nowhere, just like all the plans before it. So do you just give up or do you try for a plan that gives people options: the health insurance they have now, a number of other choices (including something like Medicare for the general population), a subsidy so people can afford to get health coverage, and the option to have no insurance (but with penalties if the person does need care beyond their means)? A leader who actually wants to get something done needs to learn from what failed in the past. If that means going slower, at least it will bring affordable care to millions of people who now have no insurance or inadequate insurance.

Quote
What i meant by FISA i meant the immunity given to the telecommunication companies:

Well, that one is more complicated than just a protest vote. FISA needed a makeover and was due to run out. Most Democrats wanted a FISA bill without telecom immunity; most Republicans, following Bush, wanted telecom immunity. The House and Senate bills differed on this and in other respects. So they set up a committee to come up with a compromise. Bush said he'd absolutely veto any bill without telecom immunity and there was no chance Congress could override his veto. So the "compromise" bill omitted a few of the most objectionable provisions wanted by Bush but it included telecom immunity. Then the question is do you vote for it even with immunity or do you vote against it, even though there's no chance the bill will be rejected? I would have preferred Obama to have voted "no," as did our state's senators (who aren't running for reelection this year), but a "no" vote would not have made a difference. Remember, Bush was going to veto a bill with no telecom immunity and there was no possibility of overriding a veto.

In an election year, here's what would have happened to Obama had he voted against the FISA bill (which contained telecom immunity despite the objections of Democrats). The Republicans and groups supporting McCain would have come out with brutal negative ads saying Obama was "soft on terrorism," that he voted against a bill to catch terrorists--and ads like that sway large numbers of people. It doesn't matter that the ads are simplistic and untrue. Huge numbers of voters react to hot buttons like "soft on terrorists," "soft on crime," "will raise your taxes," "voted against energy independence," gay marriage, lapel flags. It is *very* difficult to counter these negative characterizations even though they are not true. People don't like nuance, they don't understand nuance, they're not well informed, they believe clever ads that push their buttons.

The classic mistake liberals make is thinking that the mass of voters really cares about and understands issues. "If they just had the facts, they'd vote for our candidate." Um, no. It's too much work to get informed. It's easier to watch a 30-second sound bite and decide whose personality you like better.

Sure, not all voters are like that. But large numbers are--enough to tip an election.

If you don't get into office, you can't change anything. So if you soften your positions in response to public opinion or so you can't be the target of vicious negative ads, you're simply being realistic. Note that this isn't the same as lying to the voters.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
bigpaws
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1856


« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2008, 05:16:58 pm »

FISA does not have an expiration date.

Quote
Speaking at National Security Agency headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland on September 19, 2007, President George W. Bush urged Congress to make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent. Bush also called for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who had cooperated with government surveillance efforts, saying, "It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks."

This is a quote from wikipedia.

HTH

Bigpaws
Logged
Masta
Global Moderator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 725



« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2008, 06:21:46 pm »

So There !.... and don't forget to vote for me  Grin
Logged
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2008, 10:26:21 pm »

If you mention the buzz words today bomb,terrorists, sex offenders everyone gets up into arms.

You have a good point

People's failure to apply statistical (i.e., correct) decision making procedures is a perpetual source of disappointment

In general, it seems we are gripped by paranoid psychosis on a very large scale

I guess you're right about age; i'm still in my twenties. I'm not ready yet to be hopeless (cynic?).

I became permanently cynical when I was 18. You might say I learned quickly

"We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it." --Ernesto "Che" Guevara

I heard that guy killed a bunch of people and I would hesitate to quote him in the name of democracy

Besides, you had better be very sure you are willing to die for that Nader vote. There is a strange detached calm that comes over you in a life-or-death situation but it's not something you would thrust yourself into without military desensitization and is immediately horrible the second it's over

Sure, not all voters are like that. But large numbers are--enough to tip an election.

See, now this makes a huge amount of sense

McBush is probably going to win from dirty campaigning, frivolous bullpoop and questionable electronic voting machines. In effect, an Obama presidency would not be too distinct anyway

In my experience at school thus far, I realized that, except for listening to metal, I fail at Western society. So as long as I'm not living under a real representative government, I may as well go somewhere where I'm accepted and not shunned by other people
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 11:04:19 pm by Epic Fail Guy » Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
stretchedthin
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 3780


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2008, 01:57:16 am »

Good for you Gus. You have identified the issues you do want to support from a candidate and  reasons (based on issues) why you do not want to support the others.  You have reached the conclusion that your vote for those issues could bring a better America for yourself and your fellow citizens. Thats exactly the way you should vote.  There is nothing else to it.  It's that simple.

Any argument that it is a waisted vote is ridiculous!  Voting any party that is not supportive of  where you feel the country should be going, is the waisted vote.  It's not only waisted, it's self destructive to your interests.

Many people on this forum are going to vote for other candidates.  Some of them are going to do it for the same right reasons as you.  They believe in their mind and hearts that their ideals are supported. 

Unfortunately, some of them are going to vote like they are placing a bet on a football game.  As if they have better odds if they bet on the favorite.  As if they risk some kind of loss by not voting for the winning ticket.   

You made one of the best comments in this forum...
Quote
I know that Nader won't win but i'm voting because i want my message to be heard.

It's perfect.  That is what one voice in a democracy is about.  It's what is supposed to divide human beings from lemmings.

P.S.  I'm not going to vote for Nader, but I will hunt you down if you don't. Wink
Logged

Vectorlinux screencasts and  tutorials can be found at....
http://www.opensourcebistro.com/blog1
http://www.youtube.com/user/vid4ken?feature=mhee
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!