No personal attacks? shiat man, might as well not even have the damned thing then :D

Btw Mike, you should really change the filter so when someone times Ni--er it comes out as "son of the congo". Just sayin'

Our country is still run by the a group of idiots. This will never change in our life times.

/that should cover all the bases.

Ok that was a weird typo.

times=says. Still needs to be switched to "son of the congo" though :p

dangit

/preview
preview
preview...........

Mike: (ok, maybe "asbestos underwear" dates me as an old usenet reader)

:shrug: If that's the way you and Asbstos Underwear roll... :D

This country is run like it's ruled by a bunch of retarded monkeys. The only difference among them is which hand they use to throw poo.

If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Hi...is this where we sign up for the Flame War?

Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Nah...we' just be waiting an extra five hours as they read the election results.

"and, tied for nith with one vote each are Abraham Abrams, Arnold Anderson, George Annui..."

Lord_Baull

If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

That is exactly the type of thinking I'd expect from some snaggletoothed monkey loving mongoloid.

/Did I just break the rules?

Stay in milk, drink school!

I have no idea what's going on here, but that's probably because I'm a hippie tree-hugging libtard.

Lord_Baull
If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Heh, the last time I said something similar, I received an email that had a single sentence full of expletives. It's kind of funny to watch someone lose it like that.

Lord_Baull
If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

I don't know of a 3rd party that really represents my views any more than the two major parties. I end up voting strategically to get as close as I think I can get.

which party do you throw your votes away on anyway?

/hoping to see the a new third party soon

What's going to happen in this thread?

IXI Jim IXI [TotalFark]

Nah...we' just be waiting an extra five hours as they read the election results.

"and, tied for nith with one vote each are Abraham Abrams, Arnold Anderson, George Annui..."

That's why I'm changing my name before I run for Congress. To Aarnold Aamundson.

Mr.Asshat: What's going to happen in this thread?

Something wonderful.

Maud Dib: That's why I'm changing my name before I run for Congress. To Aarnold Aamundson.

Well, at least then you can just wait a few minutes to hear your name and turn the channel ;)

Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.


Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

If America wants to change the political process to a model - such as - how Israel works theirs - then you'd have people voting for a dozen candidates, that then have to broker arrangements with each other to make a majority ...

I just see our system as being all right as it is, not perfect, but not needing some huge change.


/also, when Gore got the popular vote in 2000, that was an interesting footnote in history, but we don't elect presidents by popular vote. We use the electoral college. There was a movement to change from electoral to popular ( in California? ) and I remember mentioning that if it's accepted, and this time the republican won the popular, but the democrat would have won the electoral, that you'd see the same people whine and try to put it back again. i.e. leave it.

CravenMorehead: Something wonderful.

ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE. USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE."

This headline makes no sense to me.

the dems that voted to give the president the authority to invade iraq are just as responsible as the republicans for the mess in iraq.

whether or not saddam had wmd the post invasion phase was still not reasonably considered. even with a wmd armed saddam threatening the world the post-invasion phase was a consequence of the invasion that anyone should know needed addressing before the actual invasion. what's up with that?

/heh

Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

So, next time we don't run a batshiat crazy fark and an incompetant VP...problem solved.

A perpetual flamewar thread. Good. Allow me to make the introduction:

THROUGH ME THE WAY TO ETERNAL PAIN,
THROUGH ME THE WAY AMONG THE LOST.
JUSTICE MOVED MY MAKER ON HIGH.
DIVINE POWER MADE ME,
WISDOM SUPREME, AND PRIMAL LOVE.
BEFORE ME NOTHING WAS BUT THINGS ETERNAL,
AND I ENDURE ETERNALLY.
ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE.

MasterThief: ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE.

hey -- they said no personal attacks, and that's a straight dis...

Fark the troops.

Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Why not just wish for people to vote in responsible and honest people from the existing two parties and vote out the dishonest ones regardless of their party. Get the politicians to clean up government by getting the dirty money out, publicly funding campaigns, and enacting ethical standards.

If there's a blizzard in hell and a third party does supplant one of the current two, it will not be any better than the party it supplants if people casting the votes don't change.

Holy crap...a fireproof forum.

I guess we'll see how long this lasts...

Jack Johnson FTW.

Lord_Baull

Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

So, next time we don't run a batshiat crazy fark and an incompetant VP...problem solved.

Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.

Who and the what now?

\this thread makes no sense

Dammit, I forgot to set the porcupine on fire. I lose at the internets.

Your opinion is wrong!

My opinion is right!

AgentOrangeDrink: Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.'


*Nods my head in agreement*

AgentOrangeDrink: Dammit, I forgot to set the porcupine on fire. I lose at the internets.

huh. i thought you were going for a disjointed perotism. i thought it was funny....what does that make me lose at?

also, i agree with BizzaroHulk. +1

AgentOrangeDrink: Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.

Almost sounds like something a Dan Ratherism. Partisan shill, but I loved his sayings.

the_gospel_of_thomas: *Nods my head in agreement*

Seriously, though.

You don't believe there should be more than the two established parties here in the US?

Where's the fun in that? You don't think that sooner or later people are going to get tired of the racket and vote a third party majority?

whidbey: 'You don't believe there should be more than the two established parties here in the US?'


You want more than two? How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?

As for me, I'm satisfied with the (flawed but workable) system that we have. I'm not adverse to fixing whats wrong, per se, ( I especially despise the nomination process, for instance. I'd like to see them with all 50 states at once, not the chosen few one at a time as it is. For example, Illinois wants to move theirs up early, to give Obama the advantage ) however, If you are going to have a plurality, its going to necessitate quite a big change in procedure.

the_gospel_of_thomas: How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?

I don't believe it's been a problem before.

We not have Independents in Congress...

And we have had other parties besides the Republicrats.

I'm just not seeing much of a choice these days. There's little difference between the two parties once you look past the surface.

If you are going to have a plurality, its going to necessitate quite a big change in procedure.

Please elaborate. What would have to change?

whidbey: 'Please elaborate. What would have to change?'


If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

whidbey: What would have to change?


Single-member districts with first-past-the-post winners would have to change. That is the reason we have only two viable parties.

I for one would like there to be no political parties. As it stands now about the only purpose that they serve is as a crutch for the mentally lazy, after all you don't have to think about the issues if you can just check off the little D or R. The main purpose of the parties seems to be to raise money for other people in that party to get elected. To that end here is my proposal:

You may not donate money to any specific candidate nor to any specific group of candidates. Any and all money shall be donated to a single pool. The money in that pool will then be divided amongst those who are running for a specific office and are legally eligable for that office.

Candidates for a given office may not spend their own money on any given campaign, save that they donate that money to the aforementioned pool.

Thoughts? (other than it will never happen, I know that.)

the_gospel_of_thomas: do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

How do you know that would be the case?

Perhaps there would be an overwhelming majority of voters.

Third parties have never broken the bank before. They promote diversity.

Abagadro: Single-member districts with first-past-the-post winners would have to change. That is the reason we have only two viable parties.

Change how?

the_gospel_of_thomas: If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?


How about instant run-offs? Or instead of pick 1 you put the candidates on the ballot in order of preference.

Anybody who doesn't agree with me is an uneducated retard!

//The very heart of farkness