The Return of Gore-Bot!!!

Sore Looserman 2000!

but... but...!!

He invented the Internet!!

[cheap shot]



Hungry meals for a Hungry Man!

[/cheap shot]

Bachman-Turner Overdrive!? Hell yeah, run Republicans run!

He really does look like John Goodman in that picture. At least he shaved.

I'm just so looking forward to voting against Bush. I'll be happy for a week.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm just so looking forward to voting against Bush. I'll be happy for a week.<hr></blockquote>

Well put.

[quote]I'm just so looking forward to voting against Bush. I'll be happy for a week. <hr></blockquote>

Add me to that list.

Saw some of the speech he made on the Jon Stewart show. Jeeeeeez, was he sweating like a hog...he and Steve Ballmer should hang out together... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?

Ah, the partisan guys and their distortyed views of why people should vote. That's why we have a WWF wrestler as a governor.

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Ah, the partisan guys and their distortyed views of why people should vote. That's why we have a WWF wrestler as a governor.</strong><hr></blockquote>How do you figure? It's people who hate the two-party system, who consider themselves "independent" (I say wishy-washy), and voted on personality rather than platform that got Jesse into office.

I know some of you guys (like Outsider) don't get this because it's supposedly better to be non-partisan, but I vote on the values represented by the parties, rather than on personalities.

I used to vote on an individual basis; in my first national election in 1988 and again in 1992, I split my vote between Repubs and Dems. Then I came to the conclusion that the party affiliation of the politician was a better predictor of their positions than their personality. And also, each individual rep and senator helps to determine who has the majority party in the Congress, which plays a big role.

And I've never seen a third-party that I both 1) knew what they stood for and 2) agreed with.

How do you vote, Outsider? Third parties? Split your ticket?

The truth? I don't vote for someone I cannot trust. I have never known a politician I can trust. I'm not saying I voted for Perot (I didn't) but I have no solidarity with any of the 2 major parties. I like the Greens on much of their stance on the environmental issues. But 2 parties is not enough. The other parties don't even factor in in a presidential race.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>Ya' damn skippy!

I mean... errm... yes, that is correct.

[quote]but I vote on the values represented by the parties, rather than on personalities.<hr></blockquote>

The two major parties represent values?

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

What values are those?
"No, I'M a bigger corporate shill!" "Nuh uh, me!"

And how the hell is someone who votes for other parties or is independent wishy-washy? Ever consider that they might actually have a spine?

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>The truth? I don't vote for someone I cannot trust. I have never known a politician I can trust.</strong><hr></blockquote>It's the dilemma of democracy. If you are being logical about it, the only rational choice is to not vote at all: You as an individual won't effect the outcome of the election,
you can't really predict what the politicians will do, and
you lose a lot of influence once they get into office anyway.

However, I prefer to take part in the system, no matter how irrational it is. I just think it's too important. Intelligent people like yourself shouldn't opt out - THAT'S what causes wrestlers to get elected. [quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>The two major parties represent values?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes. The two parties roughly represent conservative and liberal. They're not as different as fascists and communists or something, but they ARE different. Republicans represent traditionalist values and the economically advantaged, and Democrats represent progressive values and the economic lower classes.

This stuff about how "both parties suck" and "I hate all politicians" is just a way of avoiding taking a position.
[quote]And how the hell is someone who votes for other parties or is independent wishy-washy? Ever consider that they might actually have a spine?<hr></blockquote>I've considered it and rejected it.


I think they're just trying to be different, or trying to avoid sticking their neck out. I've read enough of your posts, groverat, to know you're about as conservative as they come. And yet you said you voted for Nader. Now tell me how THAT makes sense?

[quote]This stuff about how "both parties suck" and "I hate all politicians" is just a way of avoiding taking a position.<hr></blockquote>

That's bullshit. I'll take a position on any issue you throw at me and I'll stick to it with a lot more force than any goddam 2-party politico ever would.

[quote]I've read enough of your posts, groverat, to know you're about as conservative as they come.<hr></blockquote>

"Conservatives" think I'm a liberal. And "liberals" think I'm a conservative.

Check out my posts in Israel/Palestine threads and ask yourself how conservative they come across.

And don't get my hatred of Democrats color your vision as to my political leanings.

So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?

When the options are a puppet and a robot, ya, you dont vote for a person. As for a party... well... I dont even think that the leftists like the democrats much, but they HATE the republicans with a passion.

[quote]Republicans want limited government.<hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/738704.asp" target="_blank">Untrue.</a>

Republicans *and* Democrats expand the government. Republicans just infringe on personal liberties just a little less and the Democrats are kinda pro-choice. Those are the differences.

The options are bleak either way. Dems want the government to control your life, while the Reps want big corporations to do it. Either way it sucks.

[quote]The front page of the Tampa Tribune yesterday was all ablaze with the news about the convention of Florida's Democrats on Saturday in Orlando. There was a color photo of a smiling, waving Al Gore. Lieberman was there and so was Kerry and a host of other stars of the Democratic
Party. About 2,500 Floridians were in attendance.

But in Tampa, on that same night, I was looking out from the stage at the Sun Dome at a crowd of nearly 7,000 people who had come to the "Democracy Rising" rally organized by Ralph Nader. Tampa has now produced the largest crowd of the book tour (I signed the 2000th book of the evening somewhere around 2am). This is 3 times the crowd that the
Democrats got and, again, there is virtually no coverage.<hr></blockquote>

What is it about Ralph Nader that the republicrat dominated media is so paranoid about?

Big corporations control media. Big corporations also control Republicans and Democrats.

Therefore, no coverage for alternate voices.

[quote]That is what the liberal media would love you to believe<hr></blockquote>

Liberal media! What kind of conspiracy theory are you spouting there?

A rough breakdown of the corporate media heirarchy which comprises some 90% of what Americans are made "aware" of about the world and current affairs is as follows:

Journalists, reporters, staff writers etc tend to have a center/ mild liberal leaning
Editorial staff tend to be be center/mild conservative leaning
Managers tend to lean right
Media company owners/directors/major stockholders are on the whole very conservative.

The political, ideological and philosophical content and mission of a media company conforms to that of their owners. After all, they own the company, and directors tend to direct. When working for big media companies, idealistic young journalists soon substitute principle for pragmatism, or they find work in the boutique media, which has a *tiny* minority regarding readership/listenership/viewership. And with the continuing consolidation of big media and the accompanying filtering or locking out of stories that don't fit the mold, the media is destined to be shunted even further to the right.

Liberal media...its not only a myth, but a blatant lie.

[quote]So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?<hr></blockquote>

How do you think that Bush got into office?

[quote]That is what the liberal media would love you to believe.<hr></blockquote>

The sad thing is that you really believe that. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

I always laugh when I hear Rush Limbaugh talk about the 'liberal media conspiracy' when he thinks he's actually being somewhat 'objective' and then I realize its so sad that people actually listen and believe him.

As for the third parties, the two 'big' political parties are already so trenched in, it would be very difficult for another party to come in and make any kind of great challenge for either of them.

Edit: As for John Kerry, if he somehow gets the Democratic nomination for President in 2004, I won't vote for him. I won't vote for Bush either, but I've met with Kerry on a few ocassions (as well as his parents), and the guy is one of the least impressive people I've ever met. A lot of people in the media (including O'Reilly) seem to like him, but after talking with him for a few minutes, you'd be amazed how he doesn't stick to his guns. :-/

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>

You know, that and the fact that he is a murderer would make it difficult for me to vote for him.

[quote]You are so brainwashed, you don't even KNOW they are spinning a story or taking a position. <hr></blockquote>

Oh my God. You're right. I'm so brainwashed I can't even figure out that the media is giving me their opinions, and not news! Oh my God. Now that I have seen the light, I can see why the more 'enlightened' people voted for Bush! I can see that I'm being opressed by my government with high taxes! Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh now make tremendous sense to me! All of this time, I was being brainwashed by the liberal media! I bet they even throw in subliminal messages during sitcoms saying "Vote for Gore in 2004!" and "George W. Bush is a moron!"

Now I see the light! Thank you so much for telling me that I was brainwashed for so many years by the liberal conspiracy! Now I can go out into the world a better and more moral person because of all of this! Thank you so much SDW2001, thank you so much!

/sarcasm

Gore couldn't win his home state coming off the heels of an extremely popular presidency. The Democrats aren't going to let him touch the '04 nomination with a 10 foot pole.

Bush wins again, might as well start looking forward to '08.

Maybe in 2004 someone will start looking at a 3rd party.

If Powell ran for presidency (fat chance since he's Bush's right hand man now) would anyone here consider voting for him?

Oh, I thought you meant that the general public was brainwashed by the liberal media conspiracy, not just one person.

If it's just one person, there's nothing to be concerned about then.

[quote]ummm....Ted Turner anyone? He's probably the biggest media mogul out there....<hr></blockquote>

Ted Turner is singled out because he's one of the few top media figures who is *relatively* liberal. For every Ted Turner sitting in those boardrooms, there's most likely a whole gang of Rupert Murdochs.

[quote]To deny liberal bias in the media on the whole is a freaking joke.<hr></blockquote>

The bottom line:
Big media content is driven by advertisers. Big media costs big$$ in which to place advertising copy. Most advertisers are corporate America. Corporate America is largely run by conservative businessmen. That is why, if you read the boutique press, you will find a legion of controversial, gnarly, uncensored stories, many involving so-called "respectable" organizations and institutions. But 95% of Americans don't read such copy. Run that story, and we pull our commercials is what big media journalists are always aware of.

The media isn't so much represented by what is printed, but more by what is ignored, diluted, outright censored or considered taboo to print. Even the granddaddy of journalism "The New York Times" has the motto "All the News that is fit to print". In other words, *not* liberal. If you want a more comprehensive view of world affairs (not too difficult), look outside of the US media.

The more extreme left position on things is usually easily found in the editorial section of most major papers.

Outside U.S. media is good as reference, but not as pure source of information, because a lot of what you get, especially coming from France, is poor journalism (less responsibility for accuracy of quotes, editorializing in regular news space). Respected French papers are notorious for completey fabricating facts and quotes. English papers (the REAL papers, not anything for their giant tabloid market) are more reliable. I recommend <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk</a>

Well he's obviously not a communist but he certainly is a hardcore liberal.

He even married a communist traitor, you don't get more liberal than that.

Ted Turner a liberal? He was well known as a conservative when he started CNN.

Check out the caption above the picture:

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep. A lot of dems out there don't really have any idea what they want in government. They tend to be the more indecisive of the two major parties' followers.

Many of the decisive ones voted for Nader.

Whatever Turner was before, he is a pretty dopey liberal right now.

[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>

Re: nader.

Imagine if we had a president that had actual interest in the people of this country instead of the people of their party?

i love how Rush is always talking about how more people listen to his show than any other, then talks about the liberal media....well if more people listen to him than all the liberal radio shows combined (his quote), why should he worry about the liberal media?? plus he complains that the liberal press tries to tell people what to think, but that his viewers are too smart for that, yet half his viewers just call in and say "ditto" and are called dittoheads....some real good self thinking there....and how about the up-roar when somebody used the term "brown-shirts" when talking about conservatives (an allusion to nazi soldiers) when Rush himself uses the term femi-nazi to describe women who work and think differently than him?? (personnally i always liked the term conserva-nazi to discribe fat rich white guys who dislike strong women, gay men and thinks that the government is trying to take all their money, when living in this great country has allowed them opportunities to make all that money and drive sports cars and cheat on their wives with younger women)...

anyways, i still love how people call Gore a loser, and a sore loser too, when he managed to get over 50 million people to vote for him, he got over half a millon more votes than the ever so popular George W, and then, when the race is impossibly close in a state governed by his challenger's brother (and the liberal media calls the state for Gore, then reverses it after GW's brother makes many phone calls back to his home state), Gore actually has the gall to ask for a proper recount and tally of the voters....and when all is said and done, and even though many more americans vote for him than they do for GW, he stands up and says that we, as a country, need to stand behind the new president 100%....yeah, he's a sore loser...hell, can you image if any country we didn't like held elections like we do...do you think we would "honor" their govt and elected officals if they held office after getting fewer votes than there competition???

just my "liberal" ramblings....g