Ignorant Voting the Death of Democracy - Page 2

The UN is pointless. Strong international alliances are not.

I would also say that I thought Edwards lost his debate. He seemed tense, and generally got laughed at. Which obviously means his penis is small then Dick's and therefore he can't be vice-president.

Oh but the ladies love him compared to ol' darth vader, but people are very critical about the Iraq situation right now and they know they fucked up so they can't defend themselves well. That and they probably do have serious scandals like Haliburton not fully uncovered and so they might be sweating.

Its funny when a politician tries to knock a lawyer for being the dishonest type.

Oh and ya, thats my point about the UN, they are supposed to be a type of source of alliances, but ya eventually we will need a unifying world governing force, do you really want it to be America?

30 minutes till debate, take a look, see what we have to work with or just watch to see how retarded our system is, or just to see what kind of car wreck moments may occur making history, maybe Bush will throw a chair at Kerry, c'mon there could be bloodshed, it could be worth, or it could all be as close to being scripted as can pass as technically not.

Watching the debate
Lead the world to . . . dominating; war or peace?
Where are they leading the people?

Will the world run with Bush's behavior, at this point I think I hope so, he showed in true Bush style how he thinks and operates, He says hes right and if other people want to talk to hold him back, he'll just blow them off as he did with the guy running the questions, its Bush's way or the highway, Bush wants to be seen as a John Wayne type, and some want to see him that way, but I don't want to be the country of gunslinging cowboys, I want us to be the nation the world can trust, the nation that is sure it is right and will be willingly backed for military operations. I don't know if Kerry is full of shit but I know Bush has no substance, he plays to an audience like any other politician, steadfast posistions on wrong decisions isn't ok with me, and Bush's my way or the highway attitude is going to end us having our own thoughts feelings beliefs and the ability to voice them, Bush thinks he is righteous, thats what scares me, he claims he must preserve ethics in stem cell research, not to take human life, well buddy, instead of holding us back in science, how bout applying that to rest of the world, you bomb crazy sack of lies and deciet. Not only are you taking human life of ours, but of innocent women children (pregnant women) with bombs and guns along with the human life of our enemies. Hmmm.

Otherwise the debate is being highly spun to each candidate more than before, there is still some polling consensuses as high as 70 to 30 in favor of Kerry on this debate, but we'll see, next monday I do believe is the last debate, all domestic issues. I felt the debate fairly even with possible minor technical points on this issues going to Kerry.

The only candidate I really hear stressing electoral reform in our country is Ralph Nader. Go to www.votenader.org and look up electoral reform under issues.

www.c-span.org video search "Ralph Nader" for up to date interviews and articles. Be sure to have realplayer and have the setting set according to the website.

Anyone know what the sanctity of marraige is? Where does this idea and phrase come from?

Religion. Sadly the United States is still stuck in the middle ages, at least you have something in common with the muslim world!

quote:

---

Anyone know what the sanctity of marraige is?

---

I was watching a debate about gay marriage issue & the consititutional admendment. so thie may be relavent, the crux seems that gay union as a contract vs marriage is the rights & responsiblities given marriage by government.
Such right as benefits paid to spouse or not being forced to testify against your spouse are seen as discrimatory toward gay contract of partnershipship?

I'm not a hundred percent sure what you were asking with the way your post was worded, if you want to clarify. I just understand what the big deal is on the subject and what exactly bush is trying so hard to protect, and kerry from what he has said. And if it is just from a religious belief that they make their possistions, well, wtf?

I don't know if there is a thread on the subject so I might just try making one to see.

Once when I was talking with a young couple & about their desire to get married. The relationship of matrimony is in the commitment of the 2 beings, not in the words or their hearing of witnessed.
The heterosexual (christian religions) view of marriage is defined as opposite sex partners as defining the maritial status & homosexual marriage would form a legal union.
Not to imply that this is the goal of Bush either.
To look at the other side of it; afterall judgical matrimony is legal union as opposed to clerical matrimony?

Exactly, and like someone said in another thread the only thing even making it an issue, because even churches have admitted gay clergy, is religious fanatics, the same type of people that wage holy wars. Is Bush against it for any reason other than religion? If not, then it shouldn't even be an issue. We are talking about legal rights, not religious beliefs, as soon as taxes are involved in "holy" matrimony its not just religious, its legislative. And that means everyone should get a fair shake. All people are created equal, is how it is said, but now, not all unions are, and that demotes equality, rights, and even love in the world and I'm against it.

I think Bush can even be said to be defending and promoting homophobia, its no different than saying that "Sure I don't mind black people, but it doesn't mean they deserve equal rights." "Sure I don't mind women in the work place, doesn't mean they deserve equal pay." You can say whatever you want its you actions, trying to amend the constitution because something infringes on your religious beliefs? Sorry, that means you feel them less deserving or not right in their beliefs.

But of course lap dog Kerry follows suit. I swear Nader looks better every day, if it weren't for him being such a toad to look at I figure he would be the next president (even so, he would probably fall victim to the system anyway, I don't know how much power the president actually has, but no one man can keep track of all the innerworkings of a nation.) Just another reason why our system is a joke.

Its sad, Nader may actually be a better candidate but because he's twitchy and lazy eyed, he will probably never be president. He's sharp though, but I'm sure he's fumbled many a time too.

Stepping back a second, it seems awfully odd and chilling to see local and presidential election campaigns using near slogans that profess an undying will to go out and kill people. Terrorists. Killing people is now a political tool in the mainstream too. And we worry about video games and movies. Oh how the tables do turn.

How can we go about holding the media and politicians more accountable for this mass information confusion, espescially if it is going to be our main sources of this information we base our votes on?

Pat suggested everyone go through public records, but she came away with only anti-kerry stuff, well, first not everybody has the time to do that, second most people wouldn't know where to look or how to determine when they have both sides or enough or all information (if even how to read or understand most legislative jargon), and there are many government programs and documents that are no where near made public.

So I think Pat was the closest to ever saying she was happy and sure of the information she had to vote with, yet she has yet to say one bad thing about her candidate of choice (even steve said he doesn't like bush though he endorses him), but I still haven't heard if everyone is just ok with what we have access to in terms of information, facts, unbiased, why is this spin factor so out of control, why can't we pin down simple facts.

Does anyone have any good ideas on how to make basic question fact finding tools? Or how to go about making the media worth a shit? To hold people responsible for false accusations? Or endorsing numbers and information that is simply fed to them or somehow spun in their favor?

I think this stupid legislative vote number crap is well, stupid. He voted against tax cuts 345 times, he voted for blah blah blah. Its a campaign to wast air time and confuse people. If they are going to be aloud to rattle such mindnumbing numbers they should be responsible for explaining every bill and what consequences and proposed benefits were attached, otherwise spin is allowed and all is pointless because they abuse this spin shit.