DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:44 pm**

I hear people talk about Wasted votes. I do not understand this principle.

If you do not vote for who you want - you are voting for the one mega-candidate who's in the corporations' pockets. They seem the same? It's coz they are the same. They are in the corporation's pockets, a vote for ANY of them means you are voting for the illusion of multiple candidates when they are all the same.

THAT's a wasted vote.

So vote for Ron Paul
Google for this guy, he's awesome. Youtube is great.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:31 am**

You're more than welcome to vote for him roid. Good thing you don't count.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:54 am**

correct me if I'm wrong Roid, don't you live in Australia ??????? and yet your trying to get votes for Paul????? are American politics really that powerful world wide?

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:04 am**

No, Cuda, I think people are getting weary of laughing at us.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:36 am**

Despite having some good ideas and having a good approach on some things, Ron Paul has never succeeded in making me feel comfortable with the idea of Ron Paul in the White House.

My opinion. Sorry.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:16 am**

TechPro wrote:Ron Paul has never succeeded in making me feel comfortable with the idea of Ron Paul in the White House.

Exactly why we should vote for him! The one thing these coorperation candidates do great is make us feel comfortable.

But ya, Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, so I just rant on BB's to vent.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:23 pm**

Gooberman wrote:But ya, Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, so I just rant on BB's to vent.

You can be bummed about it if you want. Personally, I don't think Ron Paul's a good choice ... so I voice my opinion in the voting booth. ... and occasionally in forums.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:41 pm**

Gooberman wrote:
TechPro wrote:Ron Paul has never succeeded in making me feel comfortable with the idea of Ron Paul in the White House.
Exactly why we should vote for him! The one thing these coorperation candidates do great is make us feel comfortable.

But ya, Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, so I just rant on BB's to vent.

You personally think that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, does that mean you won't vote for him?

i like your typo "coorperation"

it's like Corporation-Cooperation

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:13 pm**

A vote is wasted if it doesn't accomplish the purposes the voter wanted to accomplish with it.

If your only purpose is to get candidate X elected this year, then your vote is wasted if your candidate loses. If you want candidate X to be elected, but your vote is also meant to encourage them even if they lose, or to signal disapproval of another candidate, then it's not wasted.

I suppose I'd consider it a waste if I put in a protest vote and it turned out it could've actually swung the main election (like Nader in Florida.) If I could've accomplished a greater purpose but I only accomplished a lesser one, the vote would be wasted. So at some level, you're playing the odds...

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:43 pm**

when all the candidates are the same, a vote for any of them is a vote for all of them - since you are just voting for the corporations and lobby groups that fund them ALL. They can field ten candidates - but it all traces back to the same one message that those interest groups pay for. There is only one message - it's like if you blur your eyes the ten candidates all come together into one mega-candidate VOLTRON style.

You could vote for Kerry/Bush as if they are somehow different options. A vote for either of them is the same, either way you vote you are voting for the same special interest groups. They give you the illusion of choice and try to threaten you with \"wasting your vote\" if you look for a real candidate.

there is a real candidate. Ron Paul is awesome, look him up.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:08 am**

Yeah, he's so awesome that he's got spambots campaigning for him.

Contents of that e-mail wrote:Hello Scott,

Ron Paul is for the people, unless you want your children to
have human implant RFID chips, a National ID card and create
a North American Union and see an economic collapse far worse
than the great depression. Vote for Ron Paul he speaks the
truth and the media and government is afraid of him. This is
the last honest politican left to bring this country out of
this rut from the War Profiteers and bush Administration has
created. Get motivated America, don't believe the lies of the
media he has also WON the GOP Debate On Sunday! Value Freedom
and Liberty instead of corporate lies and corruption. Bypass
this media blackout they are doing to Ron Paul, tell your family
and friends and get involved in a local group at meetup.com make
your voice heard! He will end the War In Iraq immediately,
He will eliminate the IRS and wasteful government spending, and
eliminate the Federal Reserve and restore power to the people
and the only person not a member on the CFR. Can any other runner
make these claims or give Americans the true freedom we were all
raised to believe? We are all economic slaves to the banks and the
illegal federal Reserve. This is why our currency is worth nothing
because of Hidden Inflation Tax and the IRS taking everything
you make!

** RON PAUL WILL STOP THE IRAQ WAR IMMEDIATELY! **

He has NEVER voted:
* to raise taxes
* for an unbalanced budget
* to raise congressional pay
* for a federal restriction on gun ownership
* to increase the power of the executive branch

He HAS voted:
* against the Iraq war
* against the inappropriately named USA PATRIOT act
* against regulating the internet
* against the Military Commissions Act

He will eliminate the IRS, Wasteful Government Spending &
Stop The Iraq War Immediately!

Most importantly, he voted NO on anything in Congress that
is not allowed by the Constitution. And he Despises any
politican that does not do their job for the people and lives
up to the constitution!

Google.com & Youtube.com Search: "Ron Paul"
Join The Revolution!

***************************************
We Need A Real President That Will Restore And Protect
Americans! Stop The War! Protect Our Borders!
*********VOTE RON PAUL 2008************
AtOuMA

I wasn't really going to vote for him before, but I'm definitely not going to now.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:05 pm**

Roid wrote:You personally think that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, does that mean you won't vote for him?

In the primary I will vote for Ron Paul, but in the main election, I am pretty sure he wont be there unless he is 3rd party. Not sure who I would vote for if he is in there as third party--it depends on how much I dislike the guy the republicans end up fielding.

They have alot of liberal republicans this e-year that seem to have a good shot, in fact, are leading.

MD wrote:I wasn't really going to vote for him before, but I'm definitely not going to now.

Really? So if I make a spam-bot for who you currently want to win, you wont vote for that guy either? Or at the very least, will be less likely to vote for him?

I hear similar arguments alot, "I don't like Ron Paul supporters, so I won't consider Ron Paul". I just don't follow

.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:07 pm**

I am voting for Pat Paulson once again.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:48 pm**

Colbert08!

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:42 pm**

The only wasted vote is not voting at all and everything else, no matter what it is, is just an excuse.

Bee

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:43 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:Colbert08!

Amen to that!

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:51 pm**

He will eliminate the IRS, Wasteful Government Spending &
Stop The Iraq War Immediately!

and if you believe this I have some prime swamp land I'd like to sell you. for a marginal profit of course

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:08 pm**

CUDA wrote:
He will eliminate the IRS, Wasteful Government Spending &
Stop The Iraq War Immediately!
and if you believe this I have some prime swamp land I'd like to sell you. for a marginal profit of course

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:06 pm**

the man stands by his impeccable voting history, exemplary character and reputation.

read up noobs, egg on yer face

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:44 pm**

roid wrote:read up noobs, egg on yer face

Me thinketh you don't really have a full understanding of American politics.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:18 pm**

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:29 pm**

MD-2389 wrote:Yeah, he's so awesome that he's got spambots campaigning for him.

Be funny as hell if it was for people like Guliani.

I guess spammers will try and capatalize on anything, be it cheap viagra, hot stock tips or watches.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:17 pm**

roid wrote:when all the candidates are the same, a vote for any of them is a vote for all of them

True, but I don't view them as "all the same". In particular, not when it comes to judicial nominations or what to do about Iraq. Two issues on which I REALLY don't trust Ron Paul.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:16 pm**

Gooberman wrote:
MD wrote:I wasn't really going to vote for him before, but I'm definitely not going to now.
Really? So if I make a spam-bot for who you currently want to win, you wont vote for that guy either? Or at the very least, will be less likely to vote for him?

I hear similar arguments alot, "I don't like Ron Paul supporters, so I won't consider Ron Paul". I just don't follow .

ZOOOOOM! Thats the sound of sarcasm flying over your head.

(The e-mail is real though. I still have it in my spam folder.) Seriously though, Ron Paul is a nobody as far as I'm concerned. He's going to utterly fail if he doesn't actually promote himself outside of the internet.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:54 pm**

CUDA wrote:correct me if I'm wrong Roid, don't you live in Australia ??????? and yet your trying to get votes for Paul????? are American politics really that powerful world wide?

I'm sorry, did you not notice your past presidents constantly attacking other countries worldwide since WW2? The point of Ron Paul is that he 's not a greedy power-hog, and stands a chance to set the system straight.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:14 pm**

TIGERassault wrote:
CUDA wrote:correct me if I'm wrong Roid, don't you live in Australia ??????? and yet your trying to get votes for Paul????? are American politics really that powerful world wide?
I'm sorry, did you not notice your past presidents constantly attacking other countries worldwide since WW2? The point of Ron Paul is that he 's not a greedy power-hog, and stands a chance to set the system straight.

I'm sorry, Could you list the countries that we have "constantly attacked" for greed and power? I want to learn as much as I can.

Bee

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:14 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
I'm sorry, Could you list the countries that we have "constantly attacked" for greed and power? I want to learn as much as I can.

Bee

*blink* *blink*

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:34 pm**

Ferno wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
I'm sorry, Could you list the countries that we have "constantly attacked" for greed and power? I want to learn as much as I can.

Bee
*blink* *blink*

Nothing to contribute?

Bee

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:22 pm**

nope.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:55 am**

My 2 cents worth. When Conservatives vote for a republican candidate who is to far to the center for their taste, just because they are afraid of the Liberals. And when Liberals vote for a democrat candidate who is to far to the center for their taste, just because they are afraid of the conservatives. The result is the OPPOSITE of what they want.
The republicans KNOW that the conservatives will vote for them no matter what, because they are afraid of Hillary. The democrats KNOW that the liberals will vote for them no matter what, because they hate whichever conservative candidate wins. And so, both parties, being primarily interested in power, move further and further towards the middle in order to get the votes of the people who have not actually made up their mind.

By voting for the \"lesser of two evils\" you actually drive your party of choice FURTHER AWAY from your point of view. This is worse than a wasted vote, it's a vote that accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you want.

However, when conservatives start voting third party because the republican's aren't really conservative any more. And when the liberals start voting third party because the democrats aren't really liberal any more, THEN both parties have to start moving AWAY from the center in order to win back their voting base.

A vote for the Green Party or the Libertarians may NOT necessarily get someone elected, but it will do more to move politics in the direction you want it to go then voting for a candidate of one of the main parties who does not really hold your views.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:20 am**

List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-02

Busy busy! How many of these countries were a threat to us? Oh yea...none of'em.

If you vote for Hillary, she will bomb Iran (Her major supporters are heavily tied to military contracts). Guiliani is a puppet joke, and will bomb Iran. Obama may hold out for a while, but will still bomb Iran.

I find it patently disgusting, MD, that you would not consider a candidate that wishes to reign in the IRS, rampant overspending, and the restoration of personal freedoms, because of an email.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:04 pm**

A list of countries without context. Wow, really convincing.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:08 pm**

Testiculese wrote:I find it patently disgusting, MD, that you would not consider a candidate that wishes to reign in the IRS, rampant overspending, and the restoration of personal freedoms, because of an email.

And how many times have we heard the same old story? Remember "Read My Lips! No New Taxes!"? Look how that turned out.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:23 pm**

Testiculese wrote:List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II:......

You didn't answer the question. What countries did the United States bomb purely for greed and power like Tiger implies.

Busy busy! How many of these countries were a threat to us? Oh yea...none of'em.

Do you really want me to comment on Afghanistan, or do you want to go back over the list and get it right.

Bettina

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:25 pm**

Ferno wrote:nope.

Well, thanks for the spam anyway. I keep forgetting about you increasing your post count

Bee

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:27 pm**

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=co ... gle+Search

I picked the link with the cleanest list, there were a bunch of disjointed ones. I don't know where to get 'official' stats, I rarely need them.

MD, that was such a transparent lie it was pathetic. He was obviously bought and paid for before he was even a candidate.

What current candidates mention 1/2 of what Ron does?

I forgot to add to that post (I'm at work) that instead of looking at someone who has been on 'our' side (as much as any one in office can really be..), instead you would consider the traitors who campaign with multimillion dollar bribes from corporate and military interests (Clinton/Guiliani/Obama)? If Ron was bought and paid for, you think he would be more visible.

No candidate, EVER, has challenged the IRS and flat out said that the IRS is illegally stealing money from the public.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:35 pm**

Iran 1998
On July 3, 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus A300B2 on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in 290 civilian fatalities from six nations, including 66 children. On February 22, 1996 the United States paid Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 people killed in the shootdown. The United States has not compensated Iran for the airplane itself to date. The aircraft was worth more than $30 million. The United States however never officially apologized.

Sudan 1998
The missiles were launched from US warships in the Red Sea. Several hit the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which the United States claimed was helping Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the embassy attacks, build chemical weapons. Dozens were wounded in Sudan by the strike.

Then United States National Security Council advisor Richard Clarke stated that intelligence existed linking Osama bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, namely the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.[1] The government of Sudan demanded an apology from both the Clinton and Bush administrations; but none has been given, since U.S. intelligence apparently still believes the plant had ties to chemical weapons. According to testimony by William Cohen, \"...the U.S. intelligence community obtained physical evidence from outside the al-Shifa facility in Sudan that supported long-standing concerns regarding its potential role in Sudanese chemical weapon efforts that could be exploited by al Qaeda.\" [1]

Officials later acknowledged, however, \"that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s.\"[2]. Unfortunately the factory was Sudan's primary source of pharmaceuticals, covering the majority of the Sudanese market. Werner Daum (Germany's ambassador to Sudan 1996–2000) wrote an article [3] in which he estimated that the attack \"probably led to tens of thousands of deaths\" of Sudanese civilians. The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: \"Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak.\"

Afghanistan 1998
President Bill Clinton announced the attacks in a TV address, saying the Khost camp was \"one of the most active terrorist bases in the world,\"[13] adding that \"I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam\" which he called \"a great religion.\"[14]

Some, however, including bin Laden, saw this as a way of attracting attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. On August 17, three days prior to the missile strike, President Clinton admitted in a [15] that he had an inappropriate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. This address followed President Clinton's grand jury testimony earlier that day (see Wag the Dog).

The minister of information of Sudan harshly condemned the attack on Khartoum and denounced Pres. Clinton as a \"proven liar\" with \"100 girlfriends\". [16] In Afghanistan the Taliban also denounced the bombing. Massive protests were staged around the world, mostly in Muslim countries, denouncing the attacks. In \"retaliation\", a Muslim organization bombed a Planet Hollywood restaurant in Cape Town, South Africa on August 25, killing two and injuring 26. Osama bin Laden also pledged to attack the US again.

Yugoslavia 1999
NATO's bombing campaign lasted from March 24 to June 11, 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic.

The proclaimed goal of the NATO operation was summed up by its spokesman as \"Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back\". That is, Yugoslav troops would have to leave Kosovo and be replaced by international peacekeepers in order to ensure that the Albanian refugees could return to their homes. However, the summary had an unfortunate double meaning which caused NATO considerable embarrassment after the war, when over 200,000 Serbs and other non-Albanian minorities fled or were expelled from the province. It was also suggested that a small victorious war would help give NATO a new role. Politicians from NATO states used terms such as \"humanitarian bombing\" and \"humanitarian war\" to describe the intervention.

Afghanistan 2001-02
Following the Soviet invasion, the United States supported diplomatic efforts to achieve a Soviet withdrawal. In addition, generous U.S. contributions to the refugee program in Pakistan played a major part in efforts to assist Afghans in need. U.S. efforts also included helping Afghans living inside Afghanistan. This cross-border humanitarian assistance program aimed at increasing Afghan self-sufficiency and helping Afghans resist Soviet attempts to drive civilians out of the rebel-dominated countryside. During the period of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. provided about 3 billion US dollars in military and economic assistance to the Afghan Mujahideens.

Following the September 11 attacks, the United States launched an attack on the Taliban government as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the U.S. supported the new government of Afghanistan and continues to station thousands of U.S. troops in the country. Their aim is to help the new government of President Hamid Karzai establish authority all across Afghanistan and hunt down insurgents that are launching attacks. In 2005, the United States and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement committing both nations to a long-term relationship.[2] On March 1, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush made a surprise visit to Afghanistan before their trips to India and Pakistan. In the meantime, the United States has also provided to Afghanistan multi-billion US dollars for the reconstruction of the country.[3]

Wow, we love to bomb places for no reason, and that was only the last five!

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:59 pm**

Yea, not all bombings are 'bad', of course, I was just listing the list. Although at least half of them are for psuedo-bull★■◆● reasons. Resource allocation and corporate profit. We really shouldn't be bombing anyone.

(MD \"you\" wasn't aimed directly at you)

Dakatsu, read your own post:

In the meantime, the United States has also provided to Afghanistan multi-billion US dollars for the reconstruction of the country

Why are we giving a country multi-billion dollars when it sits on several TRILLIONdollars of oil? Gee, and how interesting that we are building a permanent military installation in Afghanistan?

You know what the people of our country could have done with these billions of pissed away, stolen dollars? Look at the condition of the roads, the houses, the people. Open your @#$%ing eyes. We are NOT there for the people, ok? This is what you get when you vote for Clintons and Gulianis. This is what they will continue to do.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:00 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
Ferno wrote:nope.
Well, thanks for the spam anyway. I keep forgetting about you increasing your post count

Bee

I've been here long enough to not even care about my post count. Nice try though.

Hey Dakatsu, you forgot a critical piece of information about the soviet involvement in Afghanistan. The US was arming and supplying the Taliban.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:03 pm**

Ferno wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
Ferno wrote:nope.
Well, thanks for the spam anyway. I keep forgetting about you increasing your post count

Bee
I've been here long enough to not even care about my post count. Nice try though.

Hey Dakatsu, you forgot a critical piece of information about the soviet involvement in Afghanistan. The US was arming and supplying the Taliban.

Hrmf, thought I got that part. Guess not...

And if I remember I'll do the next five places we attacked tomorrow.

DescentBB

Wasted Vote?

Wasted Vote?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: