BadComrade wrote:If someone was forcing me to either eat horse shit or dog shit, I'm sure I'd smell both and make a decision on which one would probably be a little better than the other.

I could TELL the person forcing me that I want Ice Cream with whipped cream on top, served to me by the hottest woman in the world, naked, but that wouldn't matter since I'm being forced to pick horse shit or dog shit.

If I pick "ice cream", they're just gonna shove either the horse shit or dog shit in my mouth. I'd rather have some say in which it's gonna be...

Ok, here's a better analogy:
True, either way you're going to be eating some shit. BUT before your mouth is full of either horse or dog shit, you have the choice to eat ice cream with whipped cream on top, served to you by the hottest woman in the world, naked.

If I'm going to eat me some shit, I'd rather have some ice cream with whipped cream on top, served by the hottest woman in the world, naked first.

One thing that would make me very happy (although I don't foresee it happening) is Barack in the hot seat with good ol' gloomy Nader as VP. Hey, even Barack called him a "heroic figure."

I like Barack Obama. He has a lot of charisma and some good ideas, but ultimately at this point it's all style and no substance. Change, change, change. Change yr damn campaign already!

I know it'll hurt a lot of you to say it, but you have to admit that Obama's main asset is looking good, delivering articulate speeches and appealing to the younger demographic. So far, I haven't seen anything significant coming from him, insofar as his ideas are just slightly better than Hillary's. If you can't get behind a candidate 100%, what's the point? Why even vote at all?

And that lesser of two evils shit is just for the dogs. Welcome to lazy America.

BadComrade wrote:Uh, we're gonna be "eating" either a democrat or a republican come 2009, so yes, someone is "forcing" us to.

No one's forcing you to do anything. Your participation is completely voluntary.

BadComrade wrote:You can vote for Nader all you want, but he's not gonna win. I think you're a fool to not vote against either the republican or the democrat if you're a fan of Nader or anyone else who doesn't stand a chance. You're gonna waste your vote on Nader, just so you can help "show the world" that a small fraction of people in the U.S. want him in office? What good is that gonna do, other than make you feel good about yourself?

Of course Nader's not going to win, but I can't in good conscience waste my vote on either top democrat just so they can one up McCain by one vote. I don't bend in the wind like that. My vote is going to whoever I agree with, and whoever I consider worthy of a vote, regardless of winning or not. And it's not going to be either Obama, or Clinton.

BadComrade wrote:I don't care what anyone says, if Nader wasn't around, Gore probably would have wound up in office instead of Bush. Think about that. Do you think Gore would have taken us in to Iraq? You're content with the fact that (assuming you voted for Nader that time around) Bush got in to office because you didn't vote against him in the elections by voting Gore (the only candidate that stood a chance of defeating Bush) in to office?

That's all kinds of retarded.

You're not telling me any new info. In the last presidential election I wasn't eligible to vote.

I seriously don't know how you can rationalize a wasted vote if all it comes down to is a pity fuck when you might not even support their platform. This voting method is nothing but a reactionary vote out of spite against whoever you consider the worst evil. It's childish. This is just another symptom of disenfranchisement, instead of voting with your head on the issues, you'd rather just let your vote become a ballot stuffer.

It was a dumb enough idea the first time around.

BadComrade wrote:You're having a president forced on you if you don't vote (participate). As it is, even if you do vote (participate), you're going to have a democrat or a republican in office. You're being forced to have one of the two, because no one from the "green party" or any other movement like that will -ever- get in to office. You can thank the majority of retards in the country for that one.

Then voting either way is pointless when the only choice is between two. Be proud of your knee jerk vote. You vote for A or B, your vote is direct support of their policies and actions, not just "Oh, he's better than C."

BadComrade wrote:You might as well vote for a pork chop with a smiley face drawn on it then. Good work!

Yours is a vote for gristle. Nice job!

BadComrade wrote:You're the childish one. You're voting for someone with NO chance of getting in to office. Do you think that ANYONE in the democratic or republican party are gonna see your solitary vote in the handful of votes for Nader, and think "wow, that guy didn't vote for me!"?

The only way a vote for Nader would ever make any sense is if he had a chance of winning. Voting against McCain by voting for Obama is not "childish", it's having -some- control over who runs your country for you over the next 4 years.

Voting for Nader means you're leaving that decision up to the people voting with their heads (for one of the two people who has a chance of getting in to office.)

You expect me to give a fuck if the dems or republicans notice the Nader votes? Voting is not supposed to be based on popularity, nor a feeble last gasp for change. If you're fine with your vote amounting pretty much to that, there's no help for you.

BadComrade wrote:You might as well stay at home on election day and play your Jello Biafra spoken word CDs instead of going and voting for Nader to feel "punk as fuck".

I'm sure you'll feel better once you cast your useless pity fuck of a vote, maybe some Peaches and Herb will drive that feeling home. Do you even have political opinions, or is it just a lesser of two evils for you?

BadComrade wrote:

cwiko wrote:Ok, here's a better analogy:
True, either way you're going to be eating some shit. BUT before your mouth is full of either horse or dog shit, you have the choice to eat ice cream with whipped cream on top, served to you by the hottest woman in the world, naked.

If I'm going to eat me some shit, I'd rather have some ice cream with whipped cream on top, served by the hottest woman in the world, naked first.

The only way you'd "have some ice cream" would be if your vote for Nader would get him in to office, or do you and the country good in some way.

Voting for him isn't going to do shit, so no, you're analogy doesn't work...

That may be. It's pretty fucking probable it won't happen, but I'd still take my chances on the off chance that enough people like ice cream with whipped cream on top, served by the hottest woman in the world, naked.

My point being that I'm going to do what I can to have that ice cream with whipped cream on top, served by the hottest woman in the world because (in your example) no matter what, you're still eating shit when it's all over. Doesn't matter if it's dog or horse shit. It's still shit. So you're going to choose one lump of shit over another, instead of doing the one thing you can do to try to change that condition?

Oh and by the way, I'm sure you're already aware, but Nader has done a metric fuck-ton of good for me & this country already.

BadComrade wrote:You're having a president forced on you if you don't vote (participate). As it is, even if you do vote (participate), you're going to have a democrat or a republican in office. You're being forced to have one of the two, because no one from the "green party" or any other movement like that will -ever- get in to office. You can thank the majority of retards in the country for that one.

How do you expect a third party candidate to be taken seriously, or to even open the doors to a third party in an election? By voting for them. Not everyone can bitch about the lack of viable candidates and still vote D/R.

Tom wrote:Fuck Gore for running and stealing Nader's votes.

That makes about as much sense as Nader "stealing" Gores (or whomever is running) votes.

The votes are not the candidates, and the election is not the candidates. They are ours.

Thank you! I couldn't have said this any better myself.

I'll say this again: the vitriol against a democratic election system on this board is shocking. I guess a two-party lock on American politics is ok as long as your party wins. Lame.

Here's a story for you third party jerkoffs:

Obama was recently in the GAP on Michigan Avenue. In said GAP, Obama was there to return a pair of slacks that Michelle Obama had bought for him. He said that the pants did not fit and that his wife had fucked up in getting them for him.

The man came to return his own pants, only to be ogled by people who were wild about the most liberal man in the U.S. Senate.



Would Ralph Nader return his own shitty pants? I sincerely doubt it.

Obama may not be "the answer," but stop looking at a gift horse in the mouth you fucking idiots.