[nosracnoj]

and now you're here pulling for bush or pulling for moore which is stupid, who cares about moore, he's not running!...what's even worse is you probably won't vote this year either.... so take this poll i wanna know if every citizen WERE to vote, what the outcome would be. i'm not going to argue any points claiming that one candidate is better than the other or more evil than the other, you all have your opinion. the fact that we can sit here and voice them is something to many people seem to take for granted. so vote. vote here, and then again in november. vote like a banshee

[gmccaller]

oh, man....howard stern isn't running this year......

[nosracnoj]

Originally Posted by gmccaller

oh, man....howard stern isn't running this year......

yeah, go figure.....

[Truthseeker]

You left off some candidates.

[nosracnoj]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

You left off some candidates.

who are they? i'd like to learn about the others as well. although, i have to admit, i'm just going to vote for kerry.

[Truthseeker]

http://www.badnarik.org/

[mr. nobody]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

http://www.badnarik.org/

It's a shame that other than the two major parties (both of which are for the most part beholden to business interests) we don't have any other viable candidates. Republicans used to carry the Libertarian banner, claiming to want smaller government and less intrusions into personal liberty, but ever since Reganomics and their subsequent alignment with the Religious Right they've represented precisely the opposite of Libertarianism. Oh well.

America has become almost entirely black or white. Liberal or Conservative, Coke or Pepsi, Republican or Democrat. More effective democracies look at us and shake their heads in disbelief.

[Truthseeker]

Wise Words Mr. Nobody

There isn't much difference between the two parties. Nothing illustrates that better than Democrats running around screaming about the deficit and Republicans spending money like water.

[Truthseeker]

The government should not be giving parties any funds.

[Big Bill]

I hate both Kerry and Bush. They are both scary. I'm voting for Nader to make my displeasure known.

[nosracnoj]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The government should not be giving parties any funds.

but wouldn't that be unfair?.....if other bushes run, they can just use their own money, which would be more than enough. it would put lesser known political parties at even more of a disadvantage than they are now.....wouldn't it?

[Truthseeker]

Not unfair at all. Everyone should have an equal right to solicit as much funds from as many people as they like unhindered by the government. Do you think a government run by two dominating parties is going to equitably distribute funds? That is why there should be no campaign finance laws whatsoever.

[Big Bill]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Not unfair at all. Everyone should have an equal right to solicit as much funds from as many people as they like unhindered by the government. Do you think a government run by two dominating parties is going to equitably distribute funds? That is why there should be no campaign finance laws whatsoever.

Wouldn't the rich politician who made millions in the private sector have a bigger advantage over another less wealthy candidate?

[Truthseeker]

"Wouldn't the rich politician who made millions in the private sector have a bigger advantage over another less wealthy candidate?"

So what?

[Big Bill]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

"Wouldn't the rich politician who made millions in the private sector have a bigger advantage over another less wealthy candidate?"

So what?

It means that only the rich will have a REAL chance to be elected to office. What you'll get is a ruling upper class with only rich people in office. The middle and lower class won't be represented. Look at the French Revolution...

[Truthseeker]

The French Revolution was a revolt against the divine right of kings, not against wealth. I can think of no one better qualified than someone who has become wealthy through his or her own blood sweat and tears to be a political leader. By the way, when was the last time we had a poor president? If elected, John Kerry and his wife would be the richest first couple to ever live in the white house.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The French Revolution was a revolt against the divine right of kings, not against wealth. I can think of no one better qualified than someone who has become wealthy through his or her own blood sweat and tears to be a political leader. By the way, when was the last time we had a poor president? If elected, John Kerry and his wife would be the richest first couple to ever live in the white house.

Heh. The White Houe would be a step DOWN for them - they have numerous mansions all over the country, a country lodge or two, plus the Heinz foundation owns property all over the world that they have access to, anytime they're in town. The Kerrys don't fly first clses, they charter a luxury jet out of Petty Cash whenever they need it.

[pootboy]

You said it Orion, rich people like Micheal Moore and the Kerry's, like, totally suck!! Thank God [literally!] Baby Bush only gets an allowance of a few mil a month from Mamma And Pappa Saudi and the Bin Laden's-- you know what happens when he gets his hands on any REAL money (assorted oil companies left scorched and destroyed, SEC violations, TERRIBLE baseball trades, yada yada yada)

You are SO smart, and SO not a massive hypocrite Orion! Yay for you! Oh yeah, and Bush never lies!! Woo-eee!

[Big Bill]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The French Revolution was a revolt against the divine right of kings, not against wealth. I can think of no one better qualified than someone who has become wealthy through his or her own blood sweat and tears to be a political leader. By the way, when was the last time we had a poor president? If elected, John Kerry and his wife would be the richest first couple to ever live in the white house.

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/108.htm

The statement citing the essential cause of the French Revolution as the "collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending it's privileges" has great pertinence in summarizing the conflict of 1789.

Yes, most presidents are wealthy before coming into office, but at least the middle-class still has a fighting chance of getting elected.

Also, this doesn't just pertain to presidents, does it? Doesn't it also extend to the Senate and to Congress? Not all of those people come from rich families.

If you make it so the rich have an advantage when it comes to campaign finance, pretty soon everyone in government is going to be rich. Any millionaire can run for office and have a better shot at winning.

Pretty soon we're going to have a ruling upperclass.

[Big Bill]

Originally Posted by Orion

Heh. The White Houe would be a step DOWN for them - they have numerous mansions all over the country, a country lodge or two, plus the Heinz foundation owns property all over the world that they have access to, anytime they're in town. The Kerrys don't fly first clses, they charter a luxury jet out of Petty Cash whenever they need it.

It's a step down in terms of salary, but it's a step up in terms of POWER.

[Dolemite]

I voted Libertarian.

This time I'm voting Democrat in order to get rid of The Chimp.

[Truthseeker]

There were no profound revelations in that article you posted. My first statement is in complete harmony with your article: The French Revolution was a revolt against the divine right of kings.

[Truthseeker]

Flamegrape you are a socialist and not a deep thinker. Libertarian is not your party.

[Big Bill]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

There were no profound revelations in that article you posted. My first statement is in complete harmony with your article: The French Revolution was a revolt against the divine right of kings.

How about the whole social inequality thing?

Also, what do you think about the rest of my post?

Yes, most presidents are wealthy before coming into office, but at least the middle-class still has a fighting chance of getting elected.

Also, this doesn't just pertain to presidents, does it? Doesn't it also extend to the Senate and to Congress? Not all of those people come from rich families.

If you make it so the rich have an advantage when it comes to campaign finance, pretty soon everyone in government is going to be rich. Any millionaire can run for office and have a better shot at winning.

Pretty soon we're going to have a ruling upperclass.

[Truthseeker]

The social inequality was a direct result of the authoritarian nature of monarchy. Do you think the rich don't rule us now? The big difference in the United States, anyone can become rich, despite the crap that Michael Moore spins. It is the socialist creep that puts this tradition in jeopardy.

Think about the ramifications of this article and what it is saying:

Attack on 'Fahrenheit 9/11' shows 'Constitution is on fire' Badnarik says

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?...iew&record=664

[Big Bill]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The social inequality was a direct result of the authoritarian nature of monarchy. Do you think the rich don't rule us now? The big difference in the United States, anyone can become rich, despite the crap that Michael Moore spins. It is the socialist creep that puts this tradition in jeopardy.

Think about the ramifications of this article and what it is saying:

Attack on 'Fahrenheit 9/11' shows 'Constitution is on fire' Badnarik says

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?...iew&record=664

That's a good link.

[the idle]

Originally Posted by Big Bill

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/108.htm

Pretty soon we're going to have a ruling upperclass.

Hate to break this to you but . . . we already have.

One advantage of President Kerry, no one will be able to buy him.

[paolo12345678910]

Originally Posted by the idle

Hate to break this to you but . . . we already have.

One advantage of President Kerry, no one will be able to buy him.

You mean vp edwards.

[nosracnoj]

hey, anyone that thinks they're winning the moore or bush argument....just look at the poll....what is there like 30 people in this forum?.....you're not really driving the point home to too many people....let's stop arguing about them and talk about how great john kerry is!!!

[blakfist]

Originally Posted by mr. nobody

It's a shame that other than the two major parties (both of which are for the most part beholden to business interests) we don't have any other viable candidates. Republicans used to carry the Libertarian banner, claiming to want smaller government and less intrusions into personal liberty, but ever since Reganomics and their subsequent alignment with the Religious Right they've represented precisely the opposite of Libertarianism. Oh well.

America has become almost entirely black or white. Liberal or Conservative, Coke or Pepsi, Republican or Democrat. More effective democracies look at us and shake their heads in disbelief.

I myself was hoping Ross Perot would step up...at least he would pull out the best in a debate.........i think if anyone brought up the skeletons in the bush closet it would prove deadly for the Bushes.

This movie didnt even scratch the surface..........Prescott Bush the GrandPa, he was a supporter of Hitler and helped to funnel money thru his company to finance the Third Reich. A known Mason, just as Bush 1 a known mason, i can go on and on, and i will in new posts