Wha? That can't be right...

[TheSpiritOfVengance]

Well it is apparent that we have a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum in the discussion forum. Some more to oneside than the others but I do not mind that I think its cool that we have multiple opinions rather than just the same side.

Yesterday I was thinking about this whole punk to vote for Kerry or Nader thing. Now I was listening to The Clash (Rock the Casbah) at the time and then I had as alcholics refer to it as a moment of clarity.

For those of you who do not know back in the 1800's there were these two guys named Ralph Waldo Emerson and David Henery Thoreau who were Pioneers in the fields of "Nonconformity" and "Trancendentalism." Oh almost forgot Thoreau was jailed for not paying a certain tax when his buddy Ralph bailed him out he wasked by Ralph "Dave, why are you in here?" Where Dave Simply replied "Ralph, why are you not in here?"

Now in basis I was thinking of the whole idea, which is a pretty freaking smart idea, doing what you feel is right and not doing things just because others do them.

This brings me back to the whole punk to vote thing. Why Kerry? He is no better a man then Bush. Is it just because all punks vote democratic and liberal? Is that not conforming? Is not the whole idea of "punk" not to conform? Is that not just a huge friggin hypocracy then?

What I am trying to get at is we should all vote for we feel should be president, if its Bush, Nader, Kerry, or someone else, not because Fat Joe tells you to...

[FunnyLooking]

This brings me back to the whole punk to vote thing. Why Kerry? He is no better a man then Bush.

Well, obviously they don't think so. While I agree somewhat, you state that as somewhat an obvious fact, when really I doubt that people believe that. Bush-lovers hate Kerry, and Kerry-lovers hate Bush. Then there are people like you and me who would rather have a good president. Whatever.

What I am trying to get at is we should all vote for we feel should be president, if its Bush, Nader, Kerry, or someone else, not because Fat Joe tells you to...

So... you say people shouldn't vote for Kerry as he's just as bad as Bush, but they instead should vote for who would make a better president? Am I missing something here? If they think Kerry will make a better president that's why they're voting for them.

but then Fat Joe is mighty charismatic...

[Martyr]

Everybody wants to find a way to call punks hypocrites. Boy am I glad to be out of high school.

Anyway, uh, I think that liberals and democrats have minds that can translate their ideas into what somebody would call logic.
Personally, I cannot fathom them, but, likewise, my mind must be just as confusing. That is why Kerry is so horrifying to me, and Bush must be terrifying to you (not you. I mean a democrat or democrat/liberal. Actually, I mean liberal.).

Thus, depending on the closeness your mind is to this sense of "what is logic," you may vote democrat or republican. If these "punks" are democratic in mindset, well, what the heck would they be doing trucking with Bush?

There's no confusion at all here.

[TheSpiritOfVengance]

No I am saying Kerry is no better than Bush thats all. My political standpoint is this. You should not make up you mind until you have heard the story. .

[Lockeownzj00]

disclaimer: i'm not a punk, nor do i want to be.

Actually, most of the fake-punks just hate bush without reason. if you ask them who they want to vote for, then they'll probably falter.

Here's where you run into the problem of "is it conforming or does it just happen that a lot of people do it?" what if suddenly, a lot of people like bowling and it gets really popular? Is it conformist to bowl?

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti...rhimanyway.com

The point is: Kerry is no where near bush, even if he is a little worse. "so why vote for him when there are other options like nader?" you might say. Well, every vote for nader is taking away a vote for kerry, which in turn will make bush succeed. Those who oppose Bush have to unite behind kerry--you and I both know he is the only one with a chance. Maybe next time, but now, the only way to oust bush is to put ALL votes behind kerry.

[TheSpiritOfVengance]

Originally posted by Lockeownsj00 The point is: Kerry is no where near bush, even if he is a little worse. "so why vote for him when there are other options like nader?" you might say. Well, every vote for nader is taking away a vote for kerry, which in turn will make bush succeed. Those who oppose Bush have to unite behind kerry--you and I both know he is the only one with a chance. Maybe next time, but now, the only way to oust bush is to put ALL votes behind kerry.

Ah, indeed locke.Let me draw you to something else for a second though http://www.redfieldjinx.com/20-year_jinx.htm . Every 20 or so years something very bad happens (oh like an assassination attempt or they die in office) to a president. Well guess who was lucky enough to get voted in on that 20 year mark, Bush. If he wins something bad will happen to him. Although Reagan survived the only reaon he did was because he was shot near the beast hospital for gunshot wounds in the world.

Originally posted by Lockeownsj00 Here's where you run into the problem of "is it conforming or does it just happen that a lot of people do it?" what if suddenly, a lot of people like bowling and it gets really popular? Is it conformist to bowl?

As long as you like bowling in my opinion it isn't. But if you do not like bowling then it is.

[Otaku Son]

Originally Posted by TheSpiritOfVengance

he was shot near the beast hospital for gunshot wounds in the world

If he was shot near the beast hospital, I would assume he would have been torn to shreds by those beasts.

Anyway, I don't oppose Bush, nor do I support him. Hence why I'm going to vote for the third-party candidate. Besides, those don't exactly take votes from Bush per se; they simply go to the person who has more votes in each state. So if Kerry has 751 votes, Bush has 750 votes, and third-party dude has 10, those 10 votes go to Kerry, giving him 761.

[TheSpiritOfVengance]

Ummm yeah. Drum roll please. As of late I have been having quite a few typos. My grandfather (Who I consider to be the wisest man I know.) voted for nader back in 2000. I rhik I may do the same in 2004.

[Crodevillian Team]

For a good explanation, just read Punk Voter's About Page.
(And, Locke, I like that link you posted.)

Ugh. Listen, I'm not going to say you shouldn't vote for who you want... but, really; Nader doesn't have a chance in the world of winning the election.

I know some people who want to 'make a statement' and vote for Nader. I've begged them not to throw away their vote. If you don't want Bush re-elected, then please realize that only Kerry has a shot of beating him, and that the only way Kerry willl have a shot of beating Bush is by you voting for Kerry.

I know Kerry isn't The Perfect President, but when you have to choose between awful and not-quite-so-awful-at-all, common sense makes it pretty clear. Bush is a fundamentalist, bigoted, incompetent moron.

Again, please; By all means, it's your and -only- your decision, so vote for who you want. (That probably doesn't sound as sincere as I intend it.) It's just that the only thing you accomplish by voting for Nader is giving Bush a greater chance of being re-elected. I would imagine that if you support Nader, then you probably wouldn't want that anyway.

*Now.* About the Punk Voter thing: It's pretty much been organized by Fat Mike of NOFX. At NOFX concerts, they pass out free DVDs of the documentary "Unprecedented." I've seen the Documentary on the Sundance channel, and it made it pretty clear that the American people were deceived in the 2000 election.

The entire process was corrupt; thousands of voters were barred from the polls because of flaws. (For example: The state of Florida started enforcing an obscure 19th century law that banned felons from voting. Katherine Harris hired a Data Processing company to track the felons in the state, but the company matched people by first and last names only. It ignored dates of birth, middle initials, and in some cases spelling. In some instances, the date was just flat out wrong: It had some people listed as having done a crime in the year 2007. I don't think this is Minority Report... how could someone commit a crime seven years in the future?) That's only the tip of the iceberg. There were so many other sketchy events...

... At any rate, Fat Mike started Punk Voter. They've picked Kerry because Kerry is the only one with a shot at winning. Nader has no chance. The socialist party has no chance. The libertarian party has no chance. The communist party has no chance. Nader will *not* win the election.

John Kerry *could* win the election. So, NOFX and various other bands (not just punk bands) support Kerry because he's the only one who can take Bush out of office. As you see, this paragraph says the same thing as the last paragraph. That's because I wanted to make it clear.

Bush is an idiot who wants to do many things that I and many others disagree with. Fat Mike is of the same opinion. Thus, Punk Voter wants Bush out of office, thus they support Kerry, thus they can accomplish their goal.

Why target punks? Fat Mike is in NOFX. NOFX is an awesome punk band. Many 'punks' respect Fat Mike. That means Fat Mike is influential. Since Fat Mike has the ability to speak to a huge amount of people (through concerts and other events), he can spread his opinion and help convince others.

Also, 'punks' have a reputation for being apathetic at the polls. Punk Voter hopes to get more people registered, and have more people go to the polls.

What I am trying to get at is we should all vote for we feel should be president, if its Bush, Nader, Kerry, or someone else, not because Fat Joe tells you to...

I think Punk Voter, Fat Mike, Bush himself, and many other people have done a fine job in providing *reasons* as to why Bush should be out of office. They aren't simply saying "Vote for Kerry because we tell you to." They're trying to educate people, encourage people to get to the polls, and make this an *actual* democracy, and not the sham that it was in 2000.

[Sithdarth]

First of all let me say I am not a Bush supporter, nor any politics for that matter. The whole processes is completely headed in the wrong direction. Lets face it elections are popularity contests and there are some people that just don't have the ablity to hold office. (Even if they have the means to get there.) Whould you knowingly hire a plumber that knows little of plumbing simply because he was convincing in an ad.

Secondly, I have absolutely no problem with Bush as a person. He is in no way stupid. In fact he seems to be quite friendly and intelligent away from the limelight. (I saw a documentary on his campaign.) Before you judge the actions of a president you really have to hold the office. How whould you do if the fate of the world rested on your shoulders. (Not to put down other countries but the U.S. has the pontential to accidently destroy the world.) You can't judge something like that until it happens I don't care who you are.

For the frist reason I do not nor will I vote until I see a change in the politcal climate. Don't give me that crap about if you don't vote it won't change and every vote counts. Thats crap. I am the only person I know of with these views and if not there aren't enough to effect change. Also, politcal climate is today such that minds are rarely swayed. Heck your vote for the president doesn't even count. The electroal college uses it as a reference but they can decide to vote as they wish. All this means is I have no love or hate for Kerry either.

Further, lets face it people its a two party system. Oh sure there are plenty of people that call themselves independents but the majority of them vote for the two main parties. Thats simply because those parties have so much damn momentum there like the big car companies. They make it so hard that the little guys die off without some outside help.

I'll finish up a little off topic. Bush it whould seem has already had his brush with the dreaded elected in a year ending with zero curse. Does no one remember the pretzel scare. I don't think we can expect the curse to vist him a second time, no matter how hard we wish. Ok the rants over now continue on with the discussion.