Who are you voting for President.
- Thread starter Sundance_2
- Start date
Oh, I realize that.
I went through my liberal phase very quickly though. When I was 15 or 16, I decided to get all idealogical. Then I started following the news, got disillusioned with the acts of the democratic party versus it's supposed ideals, and realized that the conservatives were on a much better route, long run.
So I hit the intellectual 'peak' of 30 as proposed by Churchill and jumped ship.
He is a real character, that's for sure. :biglaugh 
As far as voting, I'm not going to vote. I'm still too young believe it or not. But even if I could, I wouldn't bother because I live in a very democratic state and my vote for Bush would get cancelled out.
It's too late now, but there should've been two options for Kerry:
As far as voting, I'm not going to vote. I'm still too young believe it or not. But even if I could, I wouldn't bother because I live in a very democratic state and my vote for Bush would get cancelled out.
It's too late now, but there should've been two options for Kerry:
- Kerry
- Kerry (anti-Bush vote)
No, I was being serious.
I bumped this poll because there had been some political discussion over in the general forum generated by it290 on the topic of Fahrenheit 9/11 and also because someone had started a new election poll.
Recently, racketboy had bumped quite a few old threads for his own reasons, and I just queried this as it was quite unusual.
Usually it's a new member that reads through the older threads and bumps them by adding their own opinion or experience. It's unusual (to me anyway) for someone to bump a thread just becuase it interests them.
In response to my bump of this poll I got some 3 year old response back from racketboy. I guess it was some sort of "retaliation" for my previous comment about him. *sigh*
<!--QuoteBegin-racketboy@Jun 30, 2004 @ 09:25 AM
what is this?!?!?!? BUMP WEEK?!?!?!?!?![/quote]
I now understand where his "FANBOY!!!" comment comes from - he thought that I was mimicking Des-ROW. That's not so bad in context, but...
I guess that I'm just sick of never being able to have any sort of serious dicussion here without someone having to go and act the fool. OK, maybe never is an exaggeration, but it certainly doesn't happen very often.
I bumped this poll because there had been some political discussion over in the general forum generated by it290 on the topic of Fahrenheit 9/11 and also because someone had started a new election poll.
Recently, racketboy had bumped quite a few old threads for his own reasons, and I just queried this as it was quite unusual.
Originally posted by mal+Jun 23, 2004 @ 06:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mal @ Jun 23, 2004 @ 06:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> What is this?
Bump Week or something?
Usually it's a new member that reads through the older threads and bumps them by adding their own opinion or experience. It's unusual (to me anyway) for someone to bump a thread just becuase it interests them.
In response to my bump of this poll I got some 3 year old response back from racketboy. I guess it was some sort of "retaliation" for my previous comment about him. *sigh*
<!--QuoteBegin-racketboy@Jun 30, 2004 @ 09:25 AM
what is this?!?!?!? BUMP WEEK?!?!?!?!?![/quote]
I now understand where his "FANBOY!!!" comment comes from - he thought that I was mimicking Des-ROW. That's not so bad in context, but...
I guess that I'm just sick of never being able to have any sort of serious dicussion here without someone having to go and act the fool. OK, maybe never is an exaggeration, but it certainly doesn't happen very often.
Personally, I could do without the political discussions. The "I think my girlfriend is crazy" topics were fun. Maybe if someone would make a quality game we'd have something to talk about. Seriously, what came out this year? A remake of Metal Gear Solid, a port of Metal Slug 3, and a new Ninja Gaiden; there were a few other good ones, possibly worth looking up but I'm not going to.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
ummm, I added to my Saturn library a bit...got harvest moon for GCN. That's about it, haha.
By all means have the "I think my girlfriend is crazy" and other fun topics. I like them too.
Not for a moment am I suggesting that all the topics here have to be serious. It would just be nice if the serious ones were allowed to remain so from time to time. Is that asking too much?
Not for a moment am I suggesting that all the topics here have to be serious. It would just be nice if the serious ones were allowed to remain so from time to time. Is that asking too much?
I can't understand HOW people can still want to vote for Bush....
Ok, i'm French....Ok, our president isn't better...
I think the only thing gamers like you can easily understand is ....a game..
so this is a political game (pixel art!)
Anti Bush game
it's not a stupid game...play it, you"ll perhaps learn a lot....
if not, come back here and explain me what is false (and what is true, be honest) in this game, i really want to understand what us people think about their "president"
In France, during in the last vote, we got 2 choices: the evil and the worst...we choose the worst and all his monkeys...
I don't know if it's the same thing in USA between Bush and Kerry, but Good luck! It's a hard time!
Kaneda
Ok, i'm French....Ok, our president isn't better...
I think the only thing gamers like you can easily understand is ....a game..
so this is a political game (pixel art!)
Anti Bush game
it's not a stupid game...play it, you"ll perhaps learn a lot....
if not, come back here and explain me what is false (and what is true, be honest) in this game, i really want to understand what us people think about their "president"
In France, during in the last vote, we got 2 choices: the evil and the worst...we choose the worst and all his monkeys...
I don't know if it's the same thing in USA between Bush and Kerry, but Good luck! It's a hard time!
Kaneda
Oddly much like mal I've been frustrated with certain persons here and the general vibe at SX. Not sure why that is. Maybe I'm nostalgic for the good old days. Or maybe it's about that time that I just take my leave. I made my mark in the HaF section, right? Hmm....
The problem, as previously mentioned, is that Republicans own the executive and legislative. And for the most part, most of the SC justices are conservative (at least from the case law I've read). There are a couple social issues that SCJ have sided on the 'liberal' side for, but it's mostly from originalism and not because of social concerns (i.e. Casey, where the right arises from penumbras and not because of a guaranteed right).
The point is, if you look at those things that the government is concerned with, as in legislation that gets proposed, very little has to do with rectifying the current problems. In his SotU address, he mentions doing a whole lot of things, but never seems to get around to it. I.e. his hydrogen cars. Granted, those vehicles would be even worse to the environment than current gas vehicles, but it'd be a good starting point to bridge the gap. Rather, he's complaining that no one passed his energy bill, and that's why we're stuck with high gas prices. Complainer, not a doer.
At least Clinton made an effort to look like he was getting stuff accomplished. He didn't get too bogged down in the bombing of Bosnia and Iraq did he? Not particularly.
I suppose it's this micro management thing the gov't has been getting into the habit of. Very frustrating.
The economy does have a little to do with the government. As we know, deficit spending only degrades the economy's growth. What's odd is that prior to Reagan, republicans were fiscally very sound - now, as Cheney put it, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter." Scary thought.
If you want to pay attention to what the government is doing, C-SPAN is a good start. So is www.chblue.com, and www.opinionjournal.com.
The problem, as previously mentioned, is that Republicans own the executive and legislative. And for the most part, most of the SC justices are conservative (at least from the case law I've read). There are a couple social issues that SCJ have sided on the 'liberal' side for, but it's mostly from originalism and not because of social concerns (i.e. Casey, where the right arises from penumbras and not because of a guaranteed right).
The point is, if you look at those things that the government is concerned with, as in legislation that gets proposed, very little has to do with rectifying the current problems. In his SotU address, he mentions doing a whole lot of things, but never seems to get around to it. I.e. his hydrogen cars. Granted, those vehicles would be even worse to the environment than current gas vehicles, but it'd be a good starting point to bridge the gap. Rather, he's complaining that no one passed his energy bill, and that's why we're stuck with high gas prices. Complainer, not a doer.
At least Clinton made an effort to look like he was getting stuff accomplished. He didn't get too bogged down in the bombing of Bosnia and Iraq did he? Not particularly.
I suppose it's this micro management thing the gov't has been getting into the habit of. Very frustrating.
The economy does have a little to do with the government. As we know, deficit spending only degrades the economy's growth. What's odd is that prior to Reagan, republicans were fiscally very sound - now, as Cheney put it, "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter." Scary thought.
If you want to pay attention to what the government is doing, C-SPAN is a good start. So is www.chblue.com, and www.opinionjournal.com.
sure thing he won't be holding any game at guantanamo.
MTXBlau Posted on Jun 30, 2004 @ 09:04 AM
Oddly much like mal I've been frustrated with certain persons here and the general vibe at SX. Not sure why that is. Maybe I'm nostalgic for the good old days.
maybe you take things just to seriously.
please enjoy the precious time and space SX forums like this one represent.
have fun, relax, tell big tales and drink a good ice cold beer. Life is a LOT more complicated so why not enjoy the breeze?
ROCK ON, MAL ! :cheers
Well, there's only one nomination. Theoretically, the Republican party doesn't HAVE to nominate Bush. Of course, that doesn't stop other Republicans from running. But the parties pick their strongest candidates; they don't want to divide the voting public. See Nader, '00.
Similar threads
