Republicans - Not Immature, Just Crooks?

[Sarien]

PV I saw these and thought of your "party of the immature" hogwash.

Here's a Republican stealing signs that you find so offensive:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/cda/article_print/0,1983,DRMN_36_3264139_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html

Here's a Republican Elections officer in Ohio, that is trying to
screw the state election:

http://www.starbeacon.com/index.asp?MC=NEWS&NID=1&AID=6296

Here's two teachers being "disruptive" at a Bush Gig:

http://www.bend.com/news/ar_view%5E3Far_id%5E3D18712.htm

Non offensive Tshirts garner arrest threats? I would have been glad if they arrested me, because I would have sued them. But compare that to an elections officer that says registration is null and void because it wasn't printed on a certain weight of paper? Give me a break.

When Vice President Dick Cheney visited Eugene, Oregon on Sept. 17, a 54-Year old woman named Perry Patterson was charged with criminal trespass for blurting the word "No" when Cheney said that George W. Bush has made the world safer.

Who in their right goddamn mind wants to vote for these fucking people?

[PUNK rock]

Certainly not me.

[Galleleo]

We could just STFU about all this CRAP, and agree that REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALL SUCK AND THAT AMERICA IS SCREWED, this forum isnt gonna change one bit about the election..

[PUNK rock]

I also forgot to add something about the Ohio election. I got an absentee ballot and in it there was a notice about voting for Nader. The Secretary of State determined there were "irregularities in the nominating petition process".

"This letter shall serve to the voter that the Board of Elections will not count ANY vote cast for Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo for candidates President and Vice President."

Not that I care, but it just proves Blackwell is a jackass.

[Troll King]

this forum isnt gonna change one bit about the election..

That's not the point though, is it? No one here is discussing politics in order to swing the legions of undecided voters over to their perspective. They're discussing them because these are fairly important issues that should be discussed. If you don't like to see them then you know the cliche: don't read them. There may be some undecided people reading and they might see something that they could agree with, and that's great. But if not, there's still no harm in discussing them.

[Ilya]

dead people support democrats

[bloodzombie]

We could just STFU about all this CRAP, and agree that REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALL SUCK AND THAT AMERICA IS SCREWED, this forum isnt gonna change one bit about the election..

You could've saved a lot of time by not clicking the topic.

[bloodzombie]

That's not the point though, is it? No one here is discussing politics in order to swing the legions of undecided voters over to their perspective.

Ok, you made my post unnecessary.. I should read before I post.


So I'll say something different... about undecided voters. How the hell do people not know yet? I talked to my parents the other day and found out that they were still undecided. I asked them if they watched the debates or the 911 commission hearings or any speeches and of course the answer was "no". Yet for some reason they think that voting is very important? How important could it be to make an uninformed decision? People like my parents shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

[Ilya]

undecided voters are really undecided on whether or not they're going to vote at all

and they're attention whores

kind of like bisexual people

[Galleleo]

You could atleast like keep it all in 1 topic, instead of making hundreds of em.

[bloodzombie]

You could atleast like keep it all in 1 topic, instead of making hundreds of em.

"US politics" is kinda broad for one thread.

[Verthanthi]

For a thread you dislike so much, why come back twice?

And yeah, i am undecided as to whether i'm going to vote at all or not.

[Jerome Scuggs]

oh yeah well michael jackson is a democrat

and no one likes michael jackson

bush2k4

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I saw some poll today that people were weighing personality over issues for the most part. I think it was like 57% to 34%.

I can't stand this fucking country sometimes.

[K2Grey]

Well, you do know that in reality, issues are not as clear-cut as one would like them to be, so it is, in general, safe for a president to be on either side of the fence. Now, I have my own opinion regarding abortion for example, but if a president is pro-life, that doesn't make him a bettter president than if he's pro-choice, esp. since the president must move cautiously on controversial issues to avoid alienating huge segments of the population. Similarly the amount of technical expertise in various fields needed is not that great because you have a cabinet to give advice to you.

On the other hand, you do need a strong and reasonably stable personality to be President. So I guess I would say that I would consider a good (as in possessing of desirable virtues for leadership of a country) personality to be a more important quality in a president, than any particular stance on any particular issue. If the president is pro-life and has a good spirit, thats fine, and if he's pro-choice and has a good spirit, thats fine too.

On the other hand not voting for someone because of their Texas accent or because their wife makes alot of ketchup money or because he has occasional slips of the tongue in public speaking is pretty bizzarre.