| Subject: Re: ELECTION 2004 |
Author:
Crackpot
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:11:57 03/25/04 Thu
In reply to:
James
's message, "Re: ELECTION 2004" on 12:50:38 03/24/04 Wed
>Eh... I don't know about all that. But I agree that
>Republicans and Democrats are about the same. Both big
>spenders, just on different things. But look you can't
>get independants to run the ballots because the local
>governments are in control of those districts.
>Therefor they appoint/hire the people to run the
>ballots. You can't legislate that some indifferent
>person run the ballots because that's just more
>freedom taken away from the people.
Good point. Although, I'm calling for a more impartial or objective party working with the Democrats and Republicans, rather than some lone, shadow figure running the ballots.
>You know I agree that it's sad. But this was not some
>conspiracy to get Bush elected. And look it's not even
>important in the long run. Your votes don't have to
>count towards anything anymore. The electoral college
>is what ultimately decides who wins the presidency.
>
I'm not trying to go the black helicopter route. However, there is too much information out there which points the whole Bush family legacy in the direction mafia-styled behavior, bad trade relations dating clear back to Germany (1933), Swiss bank accounts, the Carlyle Group, and Iran-Contra. Don't get me wrong, George Bush-I couldn't even stomach what his father and his grandfather did, nor could he stomach neo-conservatives like Frank Carlucci. Still, try researching James Baker, and his connection with Bush winning the election. It'll be fun! Exciting! It'll blow your mind! :)
As for the electorial college, why on earth haven't they gotten rid of that? It makes no sense. You'd think the man or woman who got most of the votes from the people (not the states) that they'd win, correct? Again, it makes no sense.
>I hated Clinton and I'm wising up to Bush. But you see
>it is perfectly acceptable for me to have a
>corporation own a media outlet. It is NOT acceptable
>to me for the government run the news. It's against
>the free speech amendment. Corporations owning the
>news is fine by me. That is free speech. If the
>corporations want to bias the media that's fine. I
>don't have to believe what they say. I probably won't
>anyway.
Yeah, you. But you know as well as I do that way too many people believe what they see, hear, and read. I mean, I try to explain some stuff to people and they go, "No, man! I saw it on the news. It's a fact, man." Imagine, for a minute, that the media had all the freedom to cover real scandals. Monica's magical mouth wasn't a scandal, Rwanda was. Same with any administration. Same with corporate scandals. I know where you're coming from when you say you don't want the government controlling the airwaves. I don't either. I don't want a KGB styled media, either. Imagine what we'd be watching if the CIA or FBI had control of the airwaves.
No, there needs to be public control and no censoring of, at least, the news. Further more, no commercials during the news. I'm tired of reading that the mainstream media is sucking the ass of their advertisers. That needs to be eliminated; that way we get longer sound bites. Many alternative news sources thrive today through public funding. Why can't we do that with all news outlets?
>Well sure it was. I mean Clinton even signed into
>policy that removing Saddam was a priority.
He was inept. So was Clinton. Saddam wasn't really a threat at this point. He was just a pest. North Korea is slowly becoming a bit of a threat. However, I'm way more concerned with what the Pentagon said about our ecological situation more than anything.
>Sometimes not fucking with countries leads us
>ultimatly into War. Look at WWI & WWII. We let stuff
>ride until it was in our face. Then we got put into a
>position where we HAD to respond, killing hundreds of
>thousands of men in the process. I don't like messing
>with other countries, but damn you know I don't like
>world war either. But lets say we left Saddam alone.
>We know he had a WMD program at one point. So he just
>keeps gassing kurds and maybe starts a war with
>someone (Israel?). Then the whole mess spreads like
>cancer. It is possible you know. Even likely.
I was afraid that if he had weapons of mass destruction, and we attacked, he would go ahead and use them against Israel anyways.
But anyways, we should have given the weapons inspectors more time. I'm not saying that getting rid of Saddam isn't a good thing, but we could have at least gone in the way we got Milosevic, so this way, at least, the international community would have helped us a lot more, and we wouldn't have alienated most of the world because of all this.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 