Why? Because voting for the "lesser of two evils", if that's how you feel about Kerry vs. Bush, IS BETTER THAN NOT VOTING AT ALL.
Perhaps you consider not voting a form of protest, protest against not being offered better choices.
The big question is: Is not voting an effective form of protest, or is it nothing more than an emotional, and possibly counter-productive, reaction?
Lack of voter turn out isn't going to send anyone any clear message that will encourage better candidates to come forward in the future. In the meantime, you play right into the hands of those who benefit from low voter turnout.
Why? Because voting for the "lesser of two evils", if that's how you feel about Kerry vs. Bush, IS BETTER THAN NOT VOTING AT ALL.
Perhaps you consider not voting a form of protest, protest against not being offered better choices.
The big question is: Is not voting an effective form of protest, or is it nothing more than an emotional, and possibly counter-productive, reaction?
Lack of voter turn out isn't going to send anyone any clear message that will encourage better candidates to come forward in the future. In the meantime, you play right into the hands of those who benefit from low voter turnout.
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about, simply not going to the ballOt and not voting, isn't an effective form of protest, but if our system allowed for a not-vote, then it would be more effective.
Then, poll results would be more like
"kerry lead the election this year with -56,000 votes to Bush's -80,000"
Why? Because voting for the "lesser of two evils", if that's how you feel about Kerry vs. Bush, IS BETTER THAN NOT VOTING AT ALL.
Perhaps you consider not voting a form of protest, protest against not being offered better choices.
The big question is: Is not voting an effective form of protest, or is it nothing more than an emotional, and possibly counter-productive, reaction?
Lack of voter turn out isn't going to send anyone any clear message that will encourage better candidates to come forward in the future. In the meantime, you play right into the hands of those who benefit from low voter turnout.
"Q: You're known as a very liberal comic. Are you trying to change people's political views when you go out there? Do you have an underlying agenda?
A: No. First of all, I'm not liberal. I'm just about (being) anti-United States. I don't like the way this country operates. I think we've ruined this place. And I think it's largely because of businessmen. And businessmen are not liberals. So if that makes me a liberal, then that's just an association. It's not a choice. ...
I do not care about changing anybody. Nobody. I go out there to show the rest of the Americans how badly they're doing. This country has been, for about 180 years now, badly mishandled. And it's been in the wrong hands. It's been in the hands of the business interests.
And a lot of the beauty of this country has been shattered by them. The physical beauty and the kind of institutional beauty that was originally built into this place - this experiment, this magnificent experiment in democracy is just being shredded to pieces by these right-wing Christians, the Ashcroft branch of Republicanism. (They're) just shredding the rest of the Bill of Rights which hadn't been shredded already. (But) they'd been doing a pretty good job on it up until then, anyway.
Q: Do you feel like this country has progressed any way, shape or form in the past 20 years?
A: Everybody's got more jet skis and Dustbusters now and sneakers with lights in them. They've got more cheese on their thing that they buy. They get double helpings. See, Americans measure all their progress in the wrong way. They measure by quantity and by gizmos and toys. And not by quality and by things that are important.
The most interesting thing to me is that the things that people would seem to have the most right to have - that is to say health, food, shelter and a job are the things that are last on the list. To me, that is fundamental. Those are the things humans most need to function, and we have placed them at the bottom of the list. So I think that says a lot about national character and priorities."
I just wish we had candidates that spoke out like this. Without the worry of non-support of the lobbiests, corporations and religious idiots that the other ones coddle.
This isn't a two party system...it's all one big mess. And Nader is an asshat. I can say that...it's a free country.
Couldn't find a damn thing online about Carlin's views on non-voting from a recent sketch (not that chain mail scam)...it was briliant in its clarity and truth.
Pick up "Complaints and Grievences" it's on there...I'm politically dried out now...goodbye.
...or Kerry, or Nader or [fill in next figurehead]...
[sarcasm]
oh, ok I get it now . . . I had to reach back in my memory to that teen anarchist that used to go to DK shows (me), back in my memory in order to unearth the attitude "Fvck the Man, man!! Down with authority dude!!"
But I recognized it.
ah but I outgrew that one, particularly after many experiences with supposedly non-hierarchical communal situations . . .
and worse smart Situationist friends who wanted to 're-educate' the people after the revolution.
[/sarcasm]
"Dried out"? perhaps
But with Kerry, at least it still remains to be seen
McCain was that man. It's a tragedy that he wasn't a stronger choice for the sheeple...er...people...
Actually, I'd argue that you can blame Rove, et al for that one. The push poll in South Carolina ("Would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you learned he'd fathered an illegitimate black child") cost him SC, which, in turn, cost him the nomination.
The speech: No fire, nothing new---in theory what he wants is good, bla bla bla.
I got an email from Iraq forwarded second hand through a friend today. It talked about what the press is talking about, but also covered quite a bit that "doesn't exist" in the media. I would say that in the rush to smear Bush, many things are not getting reported that would have, had the media's darling been in power. In reality, this is probably 80/20 smear/screwup.
Also, you guys have got to stop fixating on the CEO and get involved, start acting locally if you what to see change.
What's on the menu for November?
---White guy. You get to pick from rich, richer, or richest.
I got an email from Iraq forwarded second hand through a friend today. It talked about what the press is talking about, but also covered quite a bit that "doesn't exist" in the media. I
Please, post it. I'd love to see it.
Next time I get information from friends in Iraq I'll stick it up. Last October I got a whole bunch that I didn't believe; it's terrible, the soliders break into houses, they steal things, they torture people in the prisons, they put hoods on people, they take people that have done nothing wrong, it's like Palestine, everyone hates them ... I didn't believe them at the time.
i still think that voting needs to be required like taxes, but give people a guaranteed half-day off to go to the polls, and offer "i am not voting for any of these goons" as an option.
i want to tune into cnn that night and hear:
"well, kerry is getting 30%, bush is getting 30%, nader is getting 5%, and 35% of the people think none of these yahoos are qualified."
Actually, I'd argue that you can blame Rove, et al for that one. The push poll in South Carolina ("Would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you learned he'd fathered an illegitimate black child") cost him SC, which, in turn, cost him the nomination
I KNOW. Jeez the shit he pulled in college amazes. It's like Watergate x2. This guy is a flaming douche and should be killed in the face. Reminds me of on the Daily Show when John Stewart was talking about this crap they pulled on McCain with a negative add in New York saying John McCain had voted against a (pork laden) bill which happened to have a provision for studying breast cancer in it. His popularity dived after that ran. So John Stewart's like "For this to happen people at home have to be sitting there going (in stupid voice) "Gee I didn't know John McCain was for breast cancer! I guess I won't vote for him after all! Ahyeuck!" dmz it's going to be ok everything is happening the way it is because it's "God's Will." Remember the big Guy is on our side. Just ask Billy Boykin! How come HE hasn't been re-assigned?
Not voting is almost as bad as voting for Bush. W really need him out man! The environment, healthcare, and the middle east/military-industrial complex/deficit are a few areas that need de-Bushing immediately or we will suffer the consequences for a long long time.
Not in a million years. Quite frankly it's from a friend of my friend and I'm not certian what is "sensitivish" information and what is not. I get PPT presentations as well from time to time. (There are reasons the Abu Gulag photos got out---I'm not one of those people.)
DMZ, you're right man, that's going to be the choice.
That being said, this comes down to the rich white guy (and his posse...)whom will do the least amount of damage. Maybe even be somewhat willing to listen to the other "side" once in awhile. From a historical viewpoint, this is a rather shameful reality of this great nation. George Carlin is an astute observer of his fellow Americans.
Let's be realistic, in order for ANYONE to have a real shot at the White House, you can assume they "sold" their soul. "Big Corporate" and it's mouth pieces are running the show behind the scenes.
Bahhh, I'm starting to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist... Yikes.
About the speech-- I didn't watch it. My house has an open floor plan downstairs in the kitchen and the family room. So it was on in the background, but no way were we glued to the television, balling on the floor in laughter like after the last time he opened his mouth on national television. We had greater things to attend to-- like PRIME RIB COOKED MEDIUM RARE. To die for! The Splinemodel in me showed during that dinner. Mmm.
Comments
1. Bush? No. That's a given.
2. Kerry? No. I think he's a liar too. A compassionate liar. And a coward...where are you Kerry? Hello?
3. Nader? NEVER. Loneliest "can't do nothin' around here" President in history.
...NEXT? VOTE? VOTE FOR WHAT. WHO? WHY?
/putemallonanislandandletthemdukeitout
Originally posted by Artman @_@
I hate ballet.
/dontgetyourpoint
Did I really mis type Ballot for Ballet.
*smacks forehead*
well, there goes any chance I'll ever be taken seriously again.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
VOTE? VOTE FOR WHAT. WHO? WHY?
Why? Because voting for the "lesser of two evils", if that's how you feel about Kerry vs. Bush, IS BETTER THAN NOT VOTING AT ALL.
Perhaps you consider not voting a form of protest, protest against not being offered better choices.
The big question is: Is not voting an effective form of protest, or is it nothing more than an emotional, and possibly counter-productive, reaction?
Lack of voter turn out isn't going to send anyone any clear message that will encourage better candidates to come forward in the future. In the meantime, you play right into the hands of those who benefit from low voter turnout.
Originally posted by shetline
Why? Because voting for the "lesser of two evils", if that's how you feel about Kerry vs. Bush, IS BETTER THAN NOT VOTING AT ALL.
Perhaps you consider not voting a form of protest, protest against not being offered better choices.
The big question is: Is not voting an effective form of protest, or is it nothing more than an emotional, and possibly counter-productive, reaction?
Lack of voter turn out isn't going to send anyone any clear message that will encourage better candidates to come forward in the future. In the meantime, you play right into the hands of those who benefit from low voter turnout.
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about, simply not going to the ballOt and not voting, isn't an effective form of protest, but if our system allowed for a not-vote, then it would be more effective.
Then, poll results would be more like
"kerry lead the election this year with -56,000 votes to Bush's -80,000"
Originally posted by shetline
Why? Because voting for the "lesser of two evils", if that's how you feel about Kerry vs. Bush, IS BETTER THAN NOT VOTING AT ALL.
Perhaps you consider not voting a form of protest, protest against not being offered better choices.
The big question is: Is not voting an effective form of protest, or is it nothing more than an emotional, and possibly counter-productive, reaction?
Lack of voter turn out isn't going to send anyone any clear message that will encourage better candidates to come forward in the future. In the meantime, you play right into the hands of those who benefit from low voter turnout.
Fuck. Fine. I'll vote for
George Carlin.
"Q: You're known as a very liberal comic. Are you trying to change people's political views when you go out there? Do you have an underlying agenda?
A: No. First of all, I'm not liberal. I'm just about (being) anti-United States. I don't like the way this country operates. I think we've ruined this place. And I think it's largely because of businessmen. And businessmen are not liberals. So if that makes me a liberal, then that's just an association. It's not a choice. ...
I do not care about changing anybody. Nobody. I go out there to show the rest of the Americans how badly they're doing. This country has been, for about 180 years now, badly mishandled. And it's been in the wrong hands. It's been in the hands of the business interests.
And a lot of the beauty of this country has been shattered by them. The physical beauty and the kind of institutional beauty that was originally built into this place - this experiment, this magnificent experiment in democracy is just being shredded to pieces by these right-wing Christians, the Ashcroft branch of Republicanism. (They're) just shredding the rest of the Bill of Rights which hadn't been shredded already. (But) they'd been doing a pretty good job on it up until then, anyway.
Q: Do you feel like this country has progressed any way, shape or form in the past 20 years?
A: Everybody's got more jet skis and Dustbusters now and sneakers with lights in them. They've got more cheese on their thing that they buy. They get double helpings. See, Americans measure all their progress in the wrong way. They measure by quantity and by gizmos and toys. And not by quality and by things that are important.
The most interesting thing to me is that the things that people would seem to have the most right to have - that is to say health, food, shelter and a job are the things that are last on the list. To me, that is fundamental. Those are the things humans most need to function, and we have placed them at the bottom of the list. So I think that says a lot about national character and priorities."
I just wish we had candidates that spoke out like this. Without the worry of non-support of the lobbiests, corporations and religious idiots that the other ones coddle.
This isn't a two party system...it's all one big mess. And Nader is an asshat. I can say that...it's a free country.
Couldn't find a damn thing online about Carlin's views on non-voting from a recent sketch (not that chain mail scam)...it was briliant in its clarity and truth.
Pick up "Complaints and Grievences" it's on there...I'm politically dried out now...goodbye.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
...I'm politically dried out now...goodbye.
Just wait and see how 'dried out' you are after another 4.5 years of the Bush administration!!
Originally posted by pfflam
Just wait and see how 'dried out' you are after another 4.5 years of the Bush administration!!
...or Kerry, or Nader or [fill in next figurehead]...
Originally posted by Artman @_@
...or Kerry, or Nader or [fill in next figurehead]...
[sarcasm]
oh, ok I get it now . . . I had to reach back in my memory to that teen anarchist that used to go to DK shows (me), back in my memory in order to unearth the attitude "Fvck the Man, man!! Down with authority dude!!"
But I recognized it.
ah but I outgrew that one, particularly after many experiences with supposedly non-hierarchical communal situations . . .
and worse smart Situationist friends who wanted to 're-educate' the people after the revolution.
[/sarcasm]
"Dried out"? perhaps
But with Kerry, at least it still remains to be seen
and, IMO, it definitly can not get this dead-dry
Originally posted by Artman @_@
McCain was that man. It's a tragedy that he wasn't a stronger choice for the sheeple...er...people...
Actually, I'd argue that you can blame Rove, et al for that one. The push poll in South Carolina ("Would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you learned he'd fathered an illegitimate black child") cost him SC, which, in turn, cost him the nomination.
Originally posted by pfflam
Anyway, any thoughts about that Iraqi Amputee Press Release?
You wouldn't see Bush talking to an iraqi that lost a limb from a US bomb.
I got an email from Iraq forwarded second hand through a friend today. It talked about what the press is talking about, but also covered quite a bit that "doesn't exist" in the media. I would say that in the rush to smear Bush, many things are not getting reported that would have, had the media's darling been in power. In reality, this is probably 80/20 smear/screwup.
Also, you guys have got to stop fixating on the CEO and get involved, start acting locally if you what to see change.
What's on the menu for November?
---White guy. You get to pick from rich, richer, or richest.
bon appetite
Originally posted by dmz
I got an email from Iraq forwarded second hand through a friend today. It talked about what the press is talking about, but also covered quite a bit that "doesn't exist" in the media. I
Please, post it. I'd love to see it.
Next time I get information from friends in Iraq I'll stick it up. Last October I got a whole bunch that I didn't believe; it's terrible, the soliders break into houses, they steal things, they torture people in the prisons, they put hoods on people, they take people that have done nothing wrong, it's like Palestine, everyone hates them ... I didn't believe them at the time.
Post it. Go on.
i want to tune into cnn that night and hear:
"well, kerry is getting 30%, bush is getting 30%, nader is getting 5%, and 35% of the people think none of these yahoos are qualified."
Actually, I'd argue that you can blame Rove, et al for that one. The push poll in South Carolina ("Would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you learned he'd fathered an illegitimate black child") cost him SC, which, in turn, cost him the nomination
I KNOW. Jeez the shit he pulled in college amazes. It's like Watergate x2. This guy is a flaming douche and should be killed in the face. Reminds me of on the Daily Show when John Stewart was talking about this crap they pulled on McCain with a negative add in New York saying John McCain had voted against a (pork laden) bill which happened to have a provision for studying breast cancer in it. His popularity dived after that ran. So John Stewart's like "For this to happen people at home have to be sitting there going (in stupid voice) "Gee I didn't know John McCain was for breast cancer! I guess I won't vote for him after all! Ahyeuck!" dmz it's going to be ok everything is happening the way it is because it's "God's Will." Remember the big Guy is on our side. Just ask Billy Boykin! How come HE hasn't been re-assigned?
Artman I assume you've seen this
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti...himanyway.com/
Not voting is almost as bad as voting for Bush. W really need him out man! The environment, healthcare, and the middle east/military-industrial complex/deficit are a few areas that need de-Bushing immediately or we will suffer the consequences for a long long time.
Originally posted by Harald
Please, post it. I'd love to see it.
Not in a million years. Quite frankly it's from a friend of my friend and I'm not certian what is "sensitivish" information and what is not. I get PPT presentations as well from time to time. (There are reasons the Abu Gulag photos got out---I'm not one of those people.)
That being said, this comes down to the rich white guy (and his posse...)whom will do the least amount of damage. Maybe even be somewhat willing to listen to the other "side" once in awhile. From a historical viewpoint, this is a rather shameful reality of this great nation. George Carlin is an astute observer of his fellow Americans.
Let's be realistic, in order for ANYONE to have a real shot at the White House, you can assume they "sold" their soul. "Big Corporate" and it's mouth pieces are running the show behind the scenes.
Bahhh, I'm starting to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist... Yikes.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
You wouldn't see Bush talking to an iraqi that lost a limb from a US bomb.
That's cold. True, but cold. Scary, but cold. Darn shame the amputees couldn't use their crutches to bitch smack him.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Artman I assume you've seen this
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti...himanyway.com/
Where have I seen that site?!?
About the speech-- I didn't watch it. My house has an open floor plan downstairs in the kitchen and the family room. So it was on in the background, but no way were we glued to the television, balling on the floor in laughter like after the last time he opened his mouth on national television. We had greater things to attend to-- like PRIME RIB COOKED MEDIUM RARE. To die for! The Splinemodel in me showed during that dinner. Mmm.