Appeal to Green Party Voters...

[dixonmassey]

There is no big difference between GW and JFK. Except that GW appears somewhat challenged. Nader makes 100 times more sense than GW and JFK combined. If GW will be elected, It's good. that means that somebody like Nader will have chances to be elected in the future. Kerry's election will just give GOPers an excuse to blame all ills on the left. There is no doubt that shit will hit the fan soon. It will be hard to GOPers to blame Clinton and left conspiracy for everything if they will have both President and Congress under control for 8 years. Kerry must lose, spineless, clueless arm chair liberal. Democratic and Republican parties, true servants of the corporative capital and zionism, must be abolished and cursed. GO GW! Bush Cheiney 2004!!!

 

[spidergoat]

Kerry is not the lesser of two evils, he will be a great president.


JFK great? FDR great? Or Clinton great?

Yes

 

[Undecided]

But how great can Kerry be? Clinton great or JFK great? Meaning questioable or unquestionably great?

I agree with you Dixon to a point, both candidates are really both scum from the same cloth. Although the US does deserve 4 more of Bush. The repercussions of it would resound far and wide, and everyone would suffer.

 

[one_raven]

David Cobb is the Green Party candidate, not Nader. Nader is an Independent this time around.

I'm aware of that, but the majority of his supporters are Green Party members.

To your post: 5 vote for evil, 4 vote for less evil, 2 vote for a third party. Are you absolutely sure that those 2 would have voted for Kerry?

Of course not.
Hell, a few of them may have even gone for Bush, but I am playing the odds and trying to address the majority of Green Party voters.

It seems you would like it if people would not fully exercise their right to vote by being forced to vote for one of only two candidates?

Absolutley not.
I'm not sure how you got that impression, but you are mistaken.
I think, as I pointed out, that the twoparty system is an atrocious self-limiting system.

Perhaps if third party candidates were able to get enough support in a given election, thereby becoming able to receive matching campign funds, they won't have to spend most of their money getting enough support just to get their names on ballots the next time around. They'll be able to more actively campaign and actually get to participate in the debates and allow the people to hear their views.

I agree, but that sad fact is that is simply not going to happen this time around.
Either Bush or Kerry will win, and sadly, there is no way around that fact.
So people should really look at the two of them, this race being as tight as it is, and decide which one of them more closely align with their views, ideals and goals.
I'm not even asking people not to vote for Bush, I'm just asking people to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions and know where their votes are going.

How many on here are informed enough to know Badnarik and his views on the issues. Figure maybe less than 3% of the general public even know the name? I would say that there are many "undecideds" out there, whom if they were to take a survey, would likely fall into the category of Libertarian. But, since many think like you, few people vote Libertarian (or Green, or otherwise) because they're not one of the two main parties and few will ever even get to hear what they have to say.

As asguard so wisely pointed out, the Preference Voting System would do away will all this mess and allow people to cast votes that actually align most closely with their beliefs without fear of inadvertently helping their least favorite get into office.
It is a brilliant and very fair system.
Maybe we can get Nader, Cobb and Badnarik to team up and lobby for it. Would you be willing to volunteer your time and money to the cause?
I would.

 

[Mystech]

Going back to the whole "Big red button" issue, I think it would do you well to take a look at the fact that Bush is the first president since the end of the cold war to stop nuclear disarmament, and actually developed NEW easier to use and more "practical application" Nuclear weapons. Ignoring all the Depleted Uranium we're pumping through Afghanistan and Iraq (some people thing those don't count as nuclear weapons because they don't explode, but I say if it's radioactive and causes major rises in cancer and birth defects among the local populations, then it may as well be!) Bush's new "bunker busting" nukes are entirely irresponsible, and wholly more likely to be used.

One third the yield of a Hiroshima bomb, sure, but that' still enough to kill about 20,000 people in an urban center. Now who should we trust with that red button? The warmongering psychopath who won't say he was wrong to kill all those people for nothing, or the former anti-war protester? Which one do you think really values human life?

 

[dixonmassey]

Well, Mystech, had you paid attention you would have noticed that Kerry:

1) Admitted that given the intelligence known to GW at the time he would have made the same decision to attack Iraq.

2) Admitted that Bush is doing right thing in Iraq; but he's not tough enough. Kerry will be tougher, he'll mix Falludga (population 700,000) with dirt to destroy evil terrorists. I doubt he'll find enough of fools worldwide to do this dirty job or to pay for it.

3) Kerry openly admitted that Israel's security will be #1 his concern. Isn't that sickening?

 

[Tiassa]

We might also recall that it was the Bush administration that openly refused to rule out the nuclear option.

What lowered standards we live by; it used to be the threat of a massive empire. Now it's a 6'4 Arab with a chip on his shoulder that fuels the lust to see American nuclear fire rain over the Earth.

 

[nbachris2788]

Even if someone like Nader got to be president, he'll be stymied by congress. You think the Republicans and Democrats will let some third-party president act like he's the cock of the walk? What the third parties need to do is build from the bottom up, and capture some seats in congress. That way, they can influence the two major parties and pave the way for a potential third party president. Unfortunately, people like Nader are only interested in doing just enough to hurt the Democrats in swing states. I always wondered why Nader doesn't seek to get like 10-20 percent from states like New York and California, instead of getting 3% in Iowa or Minnesota. Just seems like spite.

 

[Asguard]

I dont know much about your political system but here minority partys always do well in the senate and badly in the house

the greens or the democrats will never form goverment as out political system stands but they can find themselves in control of the senate because labor will hardly ever surport a libral bill and vice versa (exception is surply which both partys will always pass). This means that the greens or the democrats or god forbid in the senerate as it is now, family first, can chose wether a bill will pass or be blocked. Last term the goverment had something like 60 double disalusion triggers because of an aliance between the greens labor and the demos

why cant your green party or whatever it is do the same?

 

[one_raven]

Because Nader has delusions of grandeur.

 

[the preacher]

Wow while perusing this thread, I noticed a few people had opposing views , to tiassa.
and even though they were'nt rude to him, the opposite cannot not be said, I just hope for is sake his daughter, does not ever reads his posts.
she could only come to the conclusion, that her father was a c#@t.
he is the most rude and nasty bast@#d, I have ever came across and to call some one, a child killer, without any reason, goes much much to far.
would he like to be called, a child killer.
tiassa you are not worthy of my shit.

 

[Tiassa]

I'll be happy to answer your bullshit, Preacher:

Wow will perusing this thread, I noticed a few people had opposing, to tiassa.

Some agree, some don't want to take it up with me, and some just don't care at all.

and even though they were'nt rude to him, the oposite cannot not be said

How so? I would appreciate a demonstration, especially since I've already established my cause for perception of rudeness.

I just hope for is sake his daughter, does not ever reads his posts.

I intend to teach her to not buy into the kind of shortsighted bullshit I find so offensive.

she could only come to the conclusion, that her father was a c#@t.

This is America. Even if I let her be the kind of liar you defend, she'll still think I'm a cunt.

he is the most rude and nasty bast@#d, I have ever came across and to call some one, a child killer, without any reason, goes much much to far.

Did you see the parenthetic note I left for that poster? Same applies to you.

would he like to be called, a child killer.

Been called worse. Your ignorance is neither my fault nor my problem.

As I advised Audible: And if you don't get what that last line means, that's your problem.

tiassa you are not worthy of my shit.

Whatever. You are demonstrably not smart enough for me to care about that judgment.

Here, I'll give you a hint: If you think it's wrong of me to accuse Audible of being a child killer without merit, then what of either Mis-t-highs or Audible pushing the assertion that Kerry will kill millions of children?

Try reading sometime, Preacher. Future stupidity to the degree you've just shown will not be considered worth a mere fart, much less shit.

Literacy. Comprehension. Try it sometime, Preacher. Your Gospel of Ignorance isn't worth even your own effort.

 

[alain]

one raven. doesn't your coutnry have a preferance system?

ie you could put nader first, kerry second. then as soon as nader loses, your vote goes to kerry anyway

 

[the preacher]

Tiassa:

I was a bit puzzled to how, you could be so rude, and get away with it.

you were rude to mis-t-highs, because she upset you in some way, justified or not, no need for all the abuse.

you were rude to audible, and all he did was defend mis-t-highs, still no need for all the abuse.

and you were rude to me, fair enough, I may have deserved some, as I was rude too.

but your a moderator, surely you should set an example, and follow your own guidelines. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35527

and I am sure when audi/misty are next on line they will address your grievances.

let's try and be a little more civil to each other,
so I'll start, I apologise for being so rude to you, there was no call for it.

 

[one_raven]

one raven. doesn't your coutnry have a preferance system?

ie you could put nader first, kerry second. then as soon as nader loses, your vote goes to kerry anyway

Sadly, no.

 

[Tiassa]

Preacher:

but your a moderator, surely you should set an example, and follow your own guidelines.

This ain't my forum, and in my forum I don't often have this sort of problem. With the exception of one recent poster, people generally enter my forum--Ethics, Morality, and Justice--with a general understanding of the idiocy of bringing an unethical form of argument and expecting results.

Furthermore, this is an election season. Rhetoric always sharpens as we run up to the cycle.

Additionally, what can I say? Every time I stoop to accomodate inferior intellects at this forum, someone inevitably complains that I'm being rude to people by addressing them in the tone and manner they prefer.

"Hurting children" is a counterpoint I use when the occasion calls for it, and what's amazing is that never has anyone targeted by that point ever asked, "Now, where did that come from?"

The reason for this is because they know. The answer is, "Well, I thought this argument was about making irrational and hurtful assertions, since that's all you do."

And so it is with the "big red button" theory.

As to you, Preacher, I don't really have any hostility in my heart. But I must beseech you to consider beyond one immediate post. If you start from the "big red button" post of Mis-t-highs' and work forward from there, you can tell I was irritated in my initial response, but you'll notice that I didn't get really pissed off until Mis-t-highs gave a dis response. And when Audible popped two cents in, completely ignoring the content of Mis-t-highs' posts and reiterating the offensive "big red button" theory, well?

It's just that it really irritates me when people want to toss such judgment around without acknowledging the facts. Yes, I'm sorry to have stomped on you as such, but I admit I'm unrelenting and unrepentant about this topic. Everybody in the world is insulted when the arguments against Kerry become so extreme and baseless. If I'm going to take shit for smacking back at those insults, well ... we can all be thankful the election cycle ends in a couple weeks. After all, when the third-party moralistic self-interests wake up and help us end the Bush nightmare, they, too, will have the right to hound Kerry every time he goes astray; they won't be expected to line up and march behind their man like the GOP.

I just don't think it's a whole lot to ask that people have a point behind their rudeness.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Tiassa:
it seems I was disrespectful to John F Kerry, for which I apologise, it was rather flippant to say he'd press the big red button.I honestly dont think he'd do that, it was very stupid of me to say so.
but I must say I dont think, he would make a good President that's not to say Bush is either.
but as I said it's better the devil you know, than the devil you dont. IMO, if Hilary Clinton had gone for the Presidency, then that for me, would have been a whole different ball game. as you have respect for kerry, I do for Mrs Clinton. so I am sorry if I enraged you.
I will try to think before I speak, in future.

 

[alain]

"Sadly, no." - one raven

ouch, i feel sorry for you

 

[Tiassa]

I wouldn't mind a playoff bracket.