REPUBICAN OR DEMO-KAKA???

[sammyrock]

To me they all the same,but which party do you support..?and I dont mean a House Party either,cause the world would be a better place of a House Party was on the erection ticket...lol :D

[andrea]

personally, I am not a party person. There are things I like from all, but to declare kinship with one party, can't do it.

it's the Party of LOVE that I support mainly.

[sammyrock]

Originally posted by andrea:
personally, I am not a party person. There are things I like from all, but to declare kinship with one party, can't do it.

it's the Party of LOVE that I support mainly. AMEN!!for the comment.. smile.gif

[domodisco]

Originally posted by andrea:
personally, I am not a party person. There are things I like from all, but to declare kinship with one party, can't do it.

it's the Party of LOVE that I support mainly. While I can appreciate this sentiment, there won't be much love in this world if we don't get rid of Bu$h - unfortunately if we don't want to see the world go even further to hell, people better get informed. We have this shitty two-party system in this country, and for now we need to work within it. On the surface, yes, they may seem the same, but do some research, read about some of the Democratic candidates, and cast a well-informed vote. And if you find that the candidate you favor doesn't get the Democratic nomination, then please, put your energy and vote behind the nominee. Apathy for the political process just doens't wash anymore (and will only insure 4 or possibly more years of Republican rule). The stakes are too goddamned high to take these kind of attitudes.

[ November 13, 2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: domodisco ]

[la verde]

Originally posted by sammyrock:
To me they all the same,but which party do you support..?and I dont mean a House Party either,cause the world would be a better place of a House Party was on the erection ticket...lol :D graemlins/thumbsup.gif they're all crooks! all of them.. one party sugar coats it for one segment of our society and the other sugar coats it for the other side... c'mon, we can see right through both parties, right...

they are both telling us what we want to hear so we can put them in office...

let's not be naive and really beleive they are there to do us some good... they are there to make their inner circle some money baby... don't beleive the hype...

[domodisco]

Originally posted by la verde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sammyrock:
To me they all the same,but which party do you support..?and I dont mean a House Party either,cause the world would be a better place of a House Party was on the erection ticket...lol :D graemlins/thumbsup.gif they're all crooks! all of them.. one party sugar coats it for one segment of our society and the other sugar coats it for the other side... c'mon, we can see right through both parties, right...

they are both telling us what we want to hear so we can put them in office...

let's not be naive and really beleive they are there to do us some good... they are there to make their inner circle some money baby... don't beleive the hype... </font>[/QUOTE]Such a great attitude - exactly why that fucker Bush is in office right now and leading us towards destruction. So what are you going to do? Not vote? Have you even looked into the backgounds and plans/policies of any of the Democratic candidates? If you truly believe what you say than are you going to get involved so you can try to change things? Or are you just gonna fall back on the 'well, they're all the same anyway' argument as the world inches ever closer to a fascist theocracy?

[la verde]

Originally posted by domodisco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by la verde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sammyrock:
To me they all the same,but which party do you support..?and I dont mean a House Party either,cause the world would be a better place of a House Party was on the erection ticket...lol :D graemlins/thumbsup.gif they're all crooks! all of them.. one party sugar coats it for one segment of our society and the other sugar coats it for the other side... c'mon, we can see right through both parties, right...

they are both telling us what we want to hear so we can put them in office...

let's not be naive and really beleive they are there to do us some good... they are there to make their inner circle some money baby... don't beleive the hype... </font>[/QUOTE]Such a great attitude - exactly why that fucker Bush is in office right now and leading us towards destruction. So what are you going to do? Not vote? Have you even looked into the backgounds and plans/policies of any of the Democratic candidates? If you truly believe what you say than are you going to get involved so you can try to change things? Or are you just gonna fall back on the 'well, they're all the same anyway' argument as the world inches ever closer to a fascist theocracy? </font>[/QUOTE]actually, I'm going to do none of the above, thank you. What I do is concentrate on making money and getting ahead in life.. it works for me.. good luck in your political carreer... I'll look you up when I want to build a freeway, put up a hospital, build a bridge or something! don't worry I'll throw a little something your way $$$ graemlins/thumbsup.gif

[la verde]

republiscams or democraps.... graemlins/rofl5.gif

[JMNYC]

They're all just corrupt politicians to me. Unfortunately, we are still in a "lesser of two evils" two-party system, so I tend to side with the dems, even though they all suck.

[la verde]

one more thing majordomo... I think a facist state is a little severe... oligarchy is probably more like it. graemlins/rofl.gif

[AD]

I vote for who I think will do the best job in office. What party they belong to means nothing to me.

[la verde]

Originally posted by Albert Diaz:
I vote for who I think will do the best job in office. What party they belong to means nothing to me. ahhhh.. the voice of reason... it's very soothing. peace Albert.

[the 18th letter]

Demo kaka! Dat's me.

[GrantB]

"The GOP is the evil party, the Democrats are the stupid party, and bipartisanship is when they join forces to do something both evil and stupid."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - Stephen Johnson

[la verde]

Originally posted by domodisco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by la verde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sammyrock:
To me they all the same,but which party do you support..?and I dont mean a House Party either,cause the world would be a better place of a House Party was on the erection ticket...lol :D graemlins/thumbsup.gif they're all crooks! all of them.. one party sugar coats it for one segment of our society and the other sugar coats it for the other side... c'mon, we can see right through both parties, right...

they are both telling us what we want to hear so we can put them in office...

let's not be naive and really beleive they are there to do us some good... they are there to make their inner circle some money baby... don't beleive the hype... </font>[/QUOTE]Such a great attitude - exactly why that fucker Bush is in office right now and leading us towards destruction. So what are you going to do? Not vote? Have you even looked into the backgounds and plans/policies of any of the Democratic candidates? If you truly believe what you say than are you going to get involved so you can try to change things? Or are you just gonna fall back on the 'well, they're all the same anyway' argument as the world inches ever closer to a fascist theocracy? </font>[/QUOTE]and last I remember... bush is in office because the country was split and florida fucked up...

[la verde]

Originally posted by rammeh:
Demo kaka! Dat's me. graemlins/grinyes.gif

[domodisco]

Originally posted by la verde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by domodisco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by la verde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sammyrock:
To me they all the same,but which party do you support..?and I dont mean a House Party either,cause the world would be a better place of a House Party was on the erection ticket...lol :D graemlins/thumbsup.gif they're all crooks! all of them.. one party sugar coats it for one segment of our society and the other sugar coats it for the other side... c'mon, we can see right through both parties, right...

they are both telling us what we want to hear so we can put them in office...

let's not be naive and really beleive they are there to do us some good... they are there to make their inner circle some money baby... don't beleive the hype... </font>[/QUOTE]Such a great attitude - exactly why that fucker Bush is in office right now and leading us towards destruction. So what are you going to do? Not vote? Have you even looked into the backgounds and plans/policies of any of the Democratic candidates? If you truly believe what you say than are you going to get involved so you can try to change things? Or are you just gonna fall back on the 'well, they're all the same anyway' argument as the world inches ever closer to a fascist theocracy? </font>[/QUOTE]and last I remember... bush is in office because the country was split and florida fucked up... </font>[/QUOTE]Partially right - Remember, Gore won the popular vote, and Florida (leaving aside the illegal removing of around 100,000 people from the voter rolls, mainly African-Americans) was won by Bush with help from the candidacy of Ralph Nader, who, after promising not to campaign heavily in swing states, did so in Florida, siphoning off votes that most likely would have gone to Gore. Without the Nader vote, Gore would have won Florida handily, and in turn the election. The main centerpiece of Nader's campaign message was 'that there is no difference between the two parties.'

So tell me, do you think that if Al Gore were president that we'd have invaded Iraq, or that he would have pushed the incremental rollback of abortion rights? Or would have sold out the environment and the country's future to the highest bidder? Or allowed energy policy to be written by lobbyists from the energy industry? Or would have turned down Gray Davis's plea for federal disaster funds to fight wildfires (well before the disastrous fires of the last months), only to give the money to Arnold Schwarzenegger when he asked?

I'm sorry if I am coming across as confrontational, but I am getting angrier with each passing day, as more and more people are killed in Iraq, as more valleys in the south are filled with toxic sludge, etc...

Your comment about oligarchy is right on, but what you don't realize is that oligarchy WILL NOT include us...

[ November 14, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: domodisco ]

[la verde]

Originally posted by domodisco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by la verde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by domodisco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by la verde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sammyrock:
To me they all the same,but which party do you support..?and I dont mean a House Party either,cause the world would be a better place of a House Party was on the erection ticket...lol :D graemlins/thumbsup.gif they're all crooks! all of them.. one party sugar coats it for one segment of our society and the other sugar coats it for the other side... c'mon, we can see right through both parties, right...

they are both telling us what we want to hear so we can put them in office...

let's not be naive and really beleive they are there to do us some good... they are there to make their inner circle some money baby... don't beleive the hype... </font>[/QUOTE]Such a great attitude - exactly why that fucker Bush is in office right now and leading us towards destruction. So what are you going to do? Not vote? Have you even looked into the backgounds and plans/policies of any of the Democratic candidates? If you truly believe what you say than are you going to get involved so you can try to change things? Or are you just gonna fall back on the 'well, they're all the same anyway' argument as the world inches ever closer to a fascist theocracy? </font>[/QUOTE]and last I remember... bush is in office because the country was split and florida fucked up... </font>[/QUOTE]Partially right - Remember, Gore won the popular vote, and Florida (leaving aside the illegal removing of around 100,000 people from the voter rolls, mainly African-Americans) was won by Bush with help from the candidacy of Ralph Nader, who, after promising not to campaign heavily in swing states, did so in Florida, siphoning off votes that most likely would have gone to Gore. Without the Nader vote, Gore would have won Florida handily, and in turn the election. The main centerpiece of Nader's campaign message was 'that there is no difference between the two parties.'

So tell me, do you think that if Al Gore were president that we'd have invaded Iraq, or that he would have pushed the incremental rollback of abortion rights? Or would have sold out the environment and the country's future to the highest bidder? Or allowed energy policy to be written by lobbyists from the energy industry? Or would have turned down Gray Davis's plea for federal disaster funds to fight wildfires (well before the disastrous fires of the last months), only to give the money to Arnold Schwarzenegger when he asked?

I'm sorry if I am coming across as confrontational, but I am getting angrier with each passing day, as more and more people are killed in Iraq, as more valleys in the south are filled with toxic sludge, etc...

Your comment about oligarchy is right on, but what you don't realize is that oligarchy WILL NOT include us... </font>[/QUOTE]ok, now we are turning this exchange into a debate of "what if" and "look at". The point was democrats or republicans... in my opinion they are both crooks... Davis.. crook, Schwarzenneger.. movie star crook. It's a dirty business the nature of politics. To sit here and think one is pureer or cleaner than the other is a bunch of crap to me... do you still believe in santa clause?

oligarchy, fascism, whatever the case you would like to accuse either party of heading towards, it doesn't make a bit of difference. when the shit hits the fan, it will hit for all of us alike and only the strong will survive... how's that for an apocaliptic vision of the future, well you have yours too, right...

i really beleive the rich republiscams and the rich democraps will be the only ones left... kinda like the roaches after a nuclear war... sorry there goes another vision...

[Moksha]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main583042.shtml


Not sure if this was posted here:


an Voting Machines Be Trusted?

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11, 2003

Electronic voting machines are under increasing fire on a number of Web sites.

The theory goes like this: Computerized voting machines bought from companies owned by major Bush/Cheney supporters are being used to fix elections all over the country in Republicans' favor.

(CBS)*Beth Lester of the CBS News Political Unit reports on new allegations about voting fraud that have been stirring up a storm in cyberspace.

A new conspiracy theory is taking hold across the Internet. It goes something like this: Computerized voting machines bought from companies owned by major Bush/Cheney supporters are being used to fix elections all over the country in Republicans' favor.

Sites like votewatch.us and truthout.com have been sounding the alarm for months, and the theory got a mainstream boost last week when Howard Dean said President Bush would be raising money from "the guy who makes voting machines, which doesn’t give you much confidence in the electoral process."

Although the content varies somewhat, the conspiracy theory's plot is fairly consistent:

First, there are the three companies that make computer voting machines: Diebold, Sequoia and Election Systems and Software (ES&S), all of which are owned by big GOP contributors. Walden O’Dell, Diebold's CEO, for example, has signed on as a Bush/Cheney Pioneer, promising to raise at least $100,000 for the campaign.

Second are the charges of dirty tricks: Using computer software purchased under proprietary contracts that make it illegal to examine the equipment, votes for Democrats are lost, changed or disqualified.

Third are the paybacks: Republicans get into office, perpetuate the fraud and help advance the causes and stuff the pocketbooks of right-wing Americans.

For evidence, the Web sites cite questions about voting in the 2003 Mississippi and 2002 Georgia gubernatorial elections, early voting problems in Dallas in 2002 and voting irregularities in Broward County, Fla., and Baldwin County, Ala. There are also a number of public officials who have worked for voting machine companies before or after taking office, often in states that have chosen to purchase new electoral equipment. And there's even some academic back-up: studies by Johns Hopkins University and MIT/CalTech's Voting Technology Project both show computerized voting systems have major reliability problems.

Reacting to the criticism, voting machine companies insist say they have made improvements to the nation's voting systems. More states are using post-Florida "Help America Vote Act" monies to add electronic voting elements to their elections. Iowa will have electronic filing at its caucuses in January and California is considering using touch-screen computers in its March 2004 presidential primary. For some election officials, the attacks are "fear-mongering by a few people who want to go back to the 19th-century way of voting," says Adams County, Colo., Clerk Carol Snyder, quoted in the Denver Post.

But response and improvements are not assuaging the conspiracy theorists' worries about a larger Republican plot. Web sites are raging with indignation about this perceived injustice. At onlinejournal.com, Ernest Partridge writes: "Might it be possible that, due to GOP control of computer voting machines, the electoral 'fix' is in?" On commondreams.org, a column by Thom Hartman is titled, "If you want to win an election, just control the voting machines." Other sites like blackboxvoting.com. deeolistening.org and crisispapers.org make the same point in a tone that's growing more and more strident.

Time will tell if the conspiracy theorists are right or if their criticisms are as easily dismissed as the voting machine companies claim. For now, anger with the Bush administration and its role in perceived voting fraud is increasing. And the theorists' concerns, verging on paranoia in some cases, seem to indicate a widespread mistrust that will not be assuaged any time soon. Perhaps it's the reason that Dean's uncompromising anti-Bush stance has been so effective and why Dean felt he could bring this conspiracy into the mainstream.

[la verde]

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main583042.shtml


Not sure if this was posted here:


an Voting Machines Be Trusted?

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11, 2003

Electronic voting machines are under increasing fire on a number of Web sites.

The theory goes like this: Computerized voting machines bought from companies owned by major Bush/Cheney supporters are being used to fix elections all over the country in Republicans' favor.

(CBS)*Beth Lester of the CBS News Political Unit reports on new allegations about voting fraud that have been stirring up a storm in cyberspace.

A new conspiracy theory is taking hold across the Internet. It goes something like this: Computerized voting machines bought from companies owned by major Bush/Cheney supporters are being used to fix elections all over the country in Republicans' favor.

Sites like votewatch.us and truthout.com have been sounding the alarm for months, and the theory got a mainstream boost last week when Howard Dean said President Bush would be raising money from "the guy who makes voting machines, which doesn’t give you much confidence in the electoral process."

Although the content varies somewhat, the conspiracy theory's plot is fairly consistent:

First, there are the three companies that make computer voting machines: Diebold, Sequoia and Election Systems and Software (ES&S), all of which are owned by big GOP contributors. Walden O’Dell, Diebold's CEO, for example, has signed on as a Bush/Cheney Pioneer, promising to raise at least $100,000 for the campaign.

Second are the charges of dirty tricks: Using computer software purchased under proprietary contracts that make it illegal to examine the equipment, votes for Democrats are lost, changed or disqualified.

Third are the paybacks: Republicans get into office, perpetuate the fraud and help advance the causes and stuff the pocketbooks of right-wing Americans.

For evidence, the Web sites cite questions about voting in the 2003 Mississippi and 2002 Georgia gubernatorial elections, early voting problems in Dallas in 2002 and voting irregularities in Broward County, Fla., and Baldwin County, Ala. There are also a number of public officials who have worked for voting machine companies before or after taking office, often in states that have chosen to purchase new electoral equipment. And there's even some academic back-up: studies by Johns Hopkins University and MIT/CalTech's Voting Technology Project both show computerized voting systems have major reliability problems.

Reacting to the criticism, voting machine companies insist say they have made improvements to the nation's voting systems. More states are using post-Florida "Help America Vote Act" monies to add electronic voting elements to their elections. Iowa will have electronic filing at its caucuses in January and California is considering using touch-screen computers in its March 2004 presidential primary. For some election officials, the attacks are "fear-mongering by a few people who want to go back to the 19th-century way of voting," says Adams County, Colo., Clerk Carol Snyder, quoted in the Denver Post.

But response and improvements are not assuaging the conspiracy theorists' worries about a larger Republican plot. Web sites are raging with indignation about this perceived injustice. At onlinejournal.com, Ernest Partridge writes: "Might it be possible that, due to GOP control of computer voting machines, the electoral 'fix' is in?" On commondreams.org, a column by Thom Hartman is titled, "If you want to win an election, just control the voting machines." Other sites like blackboxvoting.com. deeolistening.org and crisispapers.org make the same point in a tone that's growing more and more strident.

Time will tell if the conspiracy theorists are right or if their criticisms are as easily dismissed as the voting machine companies claim. For now, anger with the Bush administration and its role in perceived voting fraud is increasing. And the theorists' concerns, verging on paranoia in some cases, seem to indicate a widespread mistrust that will not be assuaged any time soon. Perhaps it's the reason that Dean's uncompromising anti-Bush stance has been so effective and why Dean felt he could bring this conspiracy into the mainstream. time will tell... in the mean time (huh..huh..) craps or scams...

[sammyrock]

Everyone has a valid point,now lets try and make the polls so we can vote that face of destruction thats in the House now!