Now, just as a question, who is running WITH Kerry? Is it that video game hating Lieberman? If so, no vote for him.
Quote:Bush, Dick, Colon.
Like we haven't heard that a hundred times already. OLD!!
In response to those site I say: Bush 'O4.
That's RIGHT! I'm a Bush supporter so get over it! Bush is one of the greatest Presidents that the U.S. has had in my memory [The only other being Clinton, but that's not the point] and if I was old enough I'd vote for him...TWICE!!*
*This message approved by President Bush.
Gentlemen, we shall create a new super president forged of Bush and Clinton! Get the buzzsaw and blowtorch!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Go Great Rumbler. That makes three of us, with Weltall included.
Alright, guys, let's hold a fricken' rally to support our favorite President! Hoo-yeah!!
Quote:Gentlemen, we shall create a new super president forged of Bush and Clinton! Get the buzzsaw and blowtorch!
Throw in Reagen too! And Lieberman! Even though he was never the president or even the vice president, he was cool anyway!
NO! Lieberman shall have his DNA mixed with a prime rib steak! For he hates video games, don't you? Let's toss in Washington, the DNA anyway, and um, Leonard Nemoy. Now then Steve, turn it ON!
Okay! *is eaten by a giant present* How did that get there?! Blargh!!
I like Liebermand. I'd have much rather had him the nominee instead of Kerry. I think we should have a Jewish president; and he was very moderate on many things.
Yeah, I used to hate Lieberman because of his stance on games, but really, I think he's the only Democratic nominee in this whole race that ever had any sense.
If I EVER voted Democratic, he'd be it.
Darunia Wrote:I like Liebermand. I'd have much rather had him the nominee instead of Kerry. I think we should have a Jewish president; and he was very moderate on many things.
Why? You're a nazi.
Is that why you said that? reverse psychology. ah, well...
I actually know next to nothing about the Leibman except that he blames games for violence. If the other stuff he thinks actually makes sense, well I'd have to wonder why his stance on video games is like it is. Considering how much I like video games, I certainly wouldn't vote for a guy with the intentions he's had for them, that is, either getting them banned altogether, or just getting rid of all the fun parts and turning every game into tetris clones.
Yeah, but he really doesn't bother with it anymore.
There is so much amounts of incredible violence , Its rare any child 8 years old or older haisnt seen atleast one violent tv show or movie by then. But only a small percentage of the 98% of kids who frequiently watch violent tv shows actually will grow up to do a felony.
Joe Lieberman promotes violence by supporting military action in iraq, Now there even saying to have manditory military service, Which means instead of having tv or video games showing violence the goverments wants 17-18 year olds to become trained killers in real life.
I swear to God, if the inane re-cock-ulous super-PC people vote Kerry in, I will go on a rape benge and boink every living thing I see.
Anyone but Bush, I say.
Quote:John Kerry is a douchebag, but I'm voting for him anyway.
My thoughts exactly on the weekend. I would vote Libertarian if this election didn't matter to me, or I thought they would have a snow ball's chance. Fucking bipartisan country...
Quote:Anyone but Bush, I say.
Anyone but Kerry, I say. :p
Quote:Now, just as a question, who is running WITH Kerry? Is it that video game hating Lieberman? If so, no vote for him.
He hasn't decided yet, but Leiberman is extremely unlikely. Too conservative and not from a region that would help him any (Conneticut isn't a place he badly needs votes in... :) ) I don't like Leiberman at all. Far too conservative and far too openly religious for me. His stand on games is just the beginning... I do like his stand on some things (like the environment) and obviously if he was the candidate I'd vote for him, but I'd never want him to be that candidate.
Quote:My thoughts exactly on the weekend. I would vote Libertarian if this election didn't matter to me, or I thought they would have a snow ball's chance. Fucking bipartisan country...
One vote doesn't matter MUCH, but it matters SOME... sure, most states aren't too competitive. But some are... need anyone remember that about 250 votes in one state, or a couple thousand in any one of three or four, would have changed the results?
Kerry has no running mate, and the elections are four months away. How's he even a viable candidate without a running mate; and you know why---because no matter who he picks, it'll turn off some voters. As long as he doesn't choose anyone, all his potential voters are happy. He's just dragging his feet on this. Take a shit or get off the pot, you liberal nazi.
He needs to pick a running mate all ready. He's only waiting so long because no matter who he picks, it'll turn somebody off. The longer he waits, the better it goes for him.
He should get Ted Kennedy as his running mate, that way his chance of getting elected would go down to zero and we'd get four more years of Bushism.
Are running mates actually REQUIRED by the constitution though, or just by the parties, which as a reminder, aren't official parts of government.
SJ, don't just think you are throwing your vote away. Everyone thinks that, and thus they don't ever actually vote what they want. Don't vote "strategically", vote for who you want. That's how it's INTENDED to work.
What would happen if Bush and kerry fused together into one being like on Dbz?
George Berry
thats cool!
Did they dance or use magic clip-on earings?
DJ, yes, the Vice President DOES actually appear in the Constitution... :) He has to have a running mate. But Darunia, you act like he's waiting a long time! Not true at all. The normal time is a lot closer to the convention than now! People are just more aware of it because of how highly politicized everything is now... but he is NOT delaying.
I would imagine that person does, I just wasn't quite certain if running mates were actually NEEDED. Keep in mind I haven't read that thing in a long time :D. My memory being what it is, those details will always slip out. Now, as to the exact article, numbers are almost impossible for me to remember. I mean, it takes me forever to learn my own phone number when it changes. I may remember what the ammendmants say, but I won't ever remember what NUMBER they are, or the exact wording for that matter :D. Same with just about everything I read or watch. I remember the gist, but then I have to see or read it again because I forget a lot of the details. I mean, that's why most people check out their favorite entertainment again right? The guy with the photographic memory really has no reason to ever see any movie twice, what with being able to replay the whole thing, word for word, in their mind, in polish... with subtitles!
I thought there was one president that did not have a vice-president.
There was a VP or two who died in office, so that after that point there was no VP (I don't think they are required to replace them... or not immediately at least...)... and if the president dies there is no VP... and the first three elections had a different system where the runner-up in the election was the VP. But after Jefferson was VP to Adams THAT went out the window... :)
John Adams was his veep.
I checked. John Tyler had no vice-president.
Tyler, Tyler... oh, right. :)
You're missing the fact that Tyler was a VP who became president. "Tippicanoe and Tyler too" -- except 'Tippicanoe' (William Henry Harrison) died three months into office, of that cold he got getting his 'longest opening address ever' award.
Other veeps have become President, and they all eventually had their own veeps.
I knew we had to have a VP mind you. I was wondering about the need to attach a VP to a main president during the voting part. I was thinkin' a mix & match should be allowed. In other words, VPs run seperatly from Ps.
It'd be a highly contested office, with all those vital powers the Constitution gives the VP... :D
Seriously, no, that would not work. The President and VP have to be able to work together. That's why after the very first time two opposing people were President and VP they changed the laws.
Now we have enough people for a rally! Woo!!
Quote:SJ, don't just think you are throwing your vote away. Everyone thinks that, and thus they don't ever actually vote what they want. Don't vote "strategically", vote for who you want. That's how it's INTENDED to work.
By principal, that's how I would normally vote (although I've never actually voted before...), but I'll do anything to prevent 4 more years of Bush. He's got to go.
I've voted twice in the three years since I could... the other one had no offices that mattered at all up for vote.
I personally don't really like either Kerry or Bush.
this country is doomed.
On a side note, have you heard that Jesse Ventura is thinking about running for president next time around? He said if he does he's not going to have a political party... :weird:
He doesn't have a chance of winning unless he's with one of the two parties.
All third party people can do is play spoiler...
Yeah, even if they get a decent amount of the vote all the really do is help one party or the other win the election.
yeah, and that's just too bad how the government works. i think that's one of the main problems in the government today..
Maybe, but with a two party system I think you get more balance since both sides have clearly defined views. Of course there are problems with it since it makes cooperation more difficult and new opinions take longer to get integrated.
I think Italy has averaged more than one prime minister per year over the last 50 years. Would you rather it was like that? :)
Why don't you ask our founding fathers? They sure didn't want it to be THIS segregated.
Washington didn't like the idea of parties, but because of Hamilton and Jefferson we have them... well, they'd have happened anyway, but their conflict helped it along. And it's been two parties since the start except for during a few short periods.
Don't forget the Whigs. And, by two parties, they weren't so hateful towards eachother back then. Given, some politics were settled by gun duels, but it was still more solid back then when we had SMART people running the country (not an attack on bush --- moreover an attack on a lot of neopoliticians). The government is slowly becoming corrupt... go ahead, disagree with me someone.. I know I'm not the only one that thinks this though... I had this discussion with my political science teacher and he somewhat agreed with me as well.