Bush Wins...and the world ends....

[Atomic]

For all the democratic hopefuls.

I don't know what the deal is with the year 2000, but we've seen quite a few very close contests in many, many diverse things. This election, for one, as well as many football games, etc. 2000 is definately a year few will forget!

Congrats to Bush and Gore for their hard work and well thought campaigns. And boo to Nader, who, as of now, doesn't appear to have his 5% that he hoped to have.

Atomic

[SweepEm]

Nookie's world might end with a Dick 'n Bush in the White House, but

Life goes on.......

[duchman]

Amen

I just saw a program about americans

Interview

I: Why did you vote for bush?
American1: I want my guns

I: Why did you vote for bush?
American2: I want to keep my weapon

I: Why did you vote for bush?
American3:As a american i want to have the right's to have a gun.

There is more in live than guns!

[Ryu (non-working password]

Duchman, stop watching "HeeHaw"

[duchman]

Smell my shoes, ryu!

[aseepish]

Bush = business as usual

Foreign policy-wise, Bush (election rhetoric aside)will probably end up continuing Clinton's policies. Clinton's policies were pretty much a continuation of Bush Sr's.

Either that or we all die screaming when the Russkies go pre-emptive on our collective NATO buttocks.

-Tony

[nhb_wanabe]

yeah, boo!

for attempting to reform a corrupted and achaic system.

shame on you for not accepting the status quo.

You're just as bad as those damn founding father of ours, not accepting the king.

stupid people.

things should never change.

Tae Kwon Do is the best style. Any dumass knows that, it's the most popular!

BJJ rulz! It should never change. Those guys getting their asses beat don't drink from the pure waters! They are cross-training too much!

[Edited by nhb_wanabe on 11-08-2000 at 09:18 AM]

[Tony10]

You know, NHB, just as I'm about to unload I realize you've beat me to it!

Rock on, brother.

[nhb_wanabe]

thanks

Too bad your the only one who will respond.

none of the people it is directed at will bother to attempt to explain why it is ok to accept the status quo. It is beneath them to debate with us poor, deluded progressives.

or,

maybe they're a little shy of engaging?

maybe their premises are unsupportable?

maybe they can only fling contempt while dodging issues?

any takers?

[Ronin]

Maybe it's because while Bush and Gore are both a-holes, at least we know what we're getting into with these bozos. We've had years to watch them work, to see them shift back and forth in their positions. We know they're two-faced, but any intelligent observer can tell you that Gore is a centrist who cares deeply about the environment, and Bush is a moderate Republican who works hard to appease the Far Right.

By contrast, Nader comes in breathing fire at everybody and claiming to be somehow morally irreproachible. Well la-di-da. That doesn't mean the man can accomplish anything once he gets into office. It doesn't mean he can handle a foreign-policy crisis. Nader was a great consumer advocate, but he barely registers on the presidential seismograph.

What exactly does the Green Party stand for, besides pissing on the Establishment? Because that's all I've heard them do so far. The Two Parties are "corrupted"? No sh!t! But what makes you think you can do better? Big business isn't going to go away because someone votes for Ralph Nader.

Wake up! Your boy just handed Bush the election on a platter.

[Tony10]

Sorry, Ronin. The election was Gore's to lose. If he lost it--see my reasons on the other thread--it's his own damn fault and not the fault of a candidate whom Gore apparently thought was so insignificant that he would not debate him.

Well, surprise. Guess you think he's significant now, dontcha?

Remember: even Clinton/Bush let Perot debate them.

Even WITHOUT Nader, my man, a Gore victory--which conceivably could still be coming--was with a 50/50 split among the nation's voters. Hardly a mandate. He failed to inspire, he failed to draw the--apparently clear to you--distinctions between what a Gore presidency would mean vs. a Bush presidency. To lay the blame at Nader's feet is to shift the blame from where it belongs. Nader didn't get into the race to elect Gore; as he said this morning, "Yes, I believe Al Gore cost ME the election!"

As for your characterization of Nader as simply a pot-shotter pointing out the obvious flaws in both candidates while being duped via his candidacy into inadvertently electing the evil one, hardly. If you read his positions on any issue--and they're all available--he is more reasonable--and HONEST, now THERE'S a concept--than either of those two bozos. It's unfair to demean his candidacy just because it does not accept the status quo of the two party system.

Again, Jesse Ventura conceivably was considered more of a joke candidate than Nader ever would be, and look where he is.

I know you want Gore to win and I sympathize on many levels, but lay the blame at the feet of your man. Clinton would have stomped Dubya, whether you like Clinton or not.

Hell the way this is going, Clinton may still be around for a while! LOL!

[nhb_wanabe]

again, its a big mystery...

what's up with you?

http://www.greenparty.org/values.html

http://www.greenparty.org/program.html

You don't know anything against which you argue.

[Linden]

Tony and NHB, I would like to commend you guys for supplying this forum with some intelligent posts. Everytime I want to enter a thread to argue a point you guys come along and say what I wanted to.

It's obvious that voting with conviction has very little poularity in this society, as oppossed to most western societies where the less fortunate speak with a louder voice.

just to remind everyone: Nader didn't spoil Gore's campaign.

Gore spoiled Nader's campaign.

We should be very upset at all those Gore supporters, I mean who do they think they are? He should have dropped out and let the more principled candidate take over.

Now maybe the moderates will hear us a little more loudly next time before proceeding with the status quo.

[Shootboxer]

It's good to hear some debate on this issue, though I think we should look at the big picture.

I think many americans would like to have more than two choices for representation, I know I do.

Democrats and Republicans, at least the non-thinking hardliners, think that the party is more important than the nation. In their arrogance lies their defeat. This country will eventually reach a point where we will have real choices for government, but only if we discard the democrat and republican agenda's.

I don't need anyone telling me that they know what is better for me, or making choices for me. We have the technology to bring our country into a new stage of democracy; a participatory democracy. Where, WE, decide what is best for us and not entrusting our future to an elite group of bloodthirsty power-mongers.

Yes, we need people to run the machinations of goverment, but we need to make the decisions that affect our national future. The issue's that democrats and republicans hold dear to be important are a smokescreen, to maintain their grip on power. It needs to end and we are the people able to make that happen, but to do that we need to end democrat and republican power in washington.

[Tony10]

Originally posted by Shootboxer

Democrats and Republicans, at least the non-thinking hardliners, think that the party is more important than the nation.

This is dead-on.

Interesting idea, about which you are correct: when Internet voting comes into being, everything changes.

Watch and see who tries the hardest to prevent that from becoming a reality...