and by you, I mean everyone who is a US citizen. Will you vote for Bush or not ? Have you seen Farenheit 9/11 and if so what do you think about it ?

Just trying to find out what the majority here on UGN will do and if the movie had any influence on you in any way.

I'm voting for myself. Cause all these people suck.

I will be voting for Bush again for one reason; he's the lesser of two Evil's...

"There! I have you! You're completely dished. Do you not know that in the service... one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

We are not only a two party system. There are plenty of other parties (just sucks that it is so tough for smaller parties aside from those two). Sure, they probably won't get elected, but then atleast you are:

1] Being active instead of just bitching
2] Not voting for someone simply b/c lesser of two evils
3] Helping your party attract attention to issues and making the larger parties deal with them

I am a member of the Libertarian Party www.lp.org . Here is a link to their standing on issues THE LINK

As I stated in the WoMD thread:

The Lacy Peterson law is retarded. It should have been common sense. You kill 2 people, it's double homicide. Why'd we need a new law for it?

Because, in the USA if the child has yet-to-be-born in accordance with abortion laws, it's not alive; therefore if she's pregnent it's not a double homocide as they will argue it's not living. It makes perfect sense if you think of how it works.

Ah, I get it. I still think it should be common sense tho..

In the USA we allow abortions on the grounds "if it's not breathing it's not alive"; this is so for every type of abortion (even partial birth; where the woman births the baby at full term and they kill it)...

Therefore, as we have it now, if the man kills the pregnent woman he is charged with 1 murder for just killing her, it is overlooked that she's pregnent because of how abortions are defined.

Therefore in order to go against how abortions work they have to make a new law to cover the pregnent woman case.

It may be common sense, but pro-choice people just see it as a restriction on their choice to kill a living thing ...

*grumble*
On topic: I'm 15, so obviously I can't vote. I'm sure I'll get some comments from IceMyst about how all teenagers are retarded, but I would vote for Badnarik. I don't support /all/ of the libertarian philosophies, but Kerry is socialist and Bush wastes money.


*edited by IceMyst (if your gonna bash me in then spell my name right)*

The race is between Bush and Kerry; Bush is the less evil of the two. Any vote for anyone else is a vote against Bush to beat Kerry. Kerry must die...

That's the problem with America. All the [censored] adults are like "Well, they both suck, but I'm gonna vote for the less sucky one!" Can't you just vote for someone you ACTUALLY LIKE.. And then they say that the teenagers are idiots who don't know what they really want..

EDIT: Sorry about the rant, just kind of pissed off..

If you vote for someone who will loose anyway, there is no point; your best bet is to vote for the one who will do the less damage; sadly it's the best for the country.

But if it does less damage, then it means the country will eventually be screwed up anyway, so you might as well try to do something right. There are enough people who don't like Bush or Kerry that if they would just vote for who they want we wouldn't have either of them..

Umm no; Bush will do 100% better than kerry; granted i don't agree with bush in the first place. Therefore Bush is the lesser of two evil's and has my support.

Look at it this way:
Bush 49%
Kerry 49%
Other [censored] 1%

See, the other 1% could be the judging factor; in a lot of cases; see the last election...

Kerry's socialist, Bush's Facist, why not vote for someone who won't [censored]-rape you once he's president?

That 1% could be larger if people would just realise that it's possible.

There is no point in voting for anyone else you idiot. You vote for someone else and kerry stands a chance to win... Any vote against Bush is a vote for Kerry...

Kerry is sadly the larger [censored] idiot than Bush; and you're acting like bush even has a say in what he does! There are other powers in play than just the president you [censored] retard; you think that our greedy government would leave every decision up to one person?

Not sure who closed this topic, but it is a good one so I opened it back up.

There are 3 things in this world you can almost assure will bring an argument when talked about.

1.) Sex
2.) Religion
3.) Polotics

This happens to deal with the latter. Lets keep cool heads and disscuss this like we can.

I find the choices to be awful. This is however our(The american peoples)fault. It is possible that one of these independent parties will rise up. May I remind you about an old US political party which held much power, "The Wigs". They are no more so it is possible.

I think the Democratic party has gone to [censored]. It started out as a good idea, but now is backed by every sicko out there. Groups trying to leagalise petofilia go through the democratic party.

The republican party is best if you are a rich white person.

So I find myself stuck with having to find another party. I think most of middle america will soon see this as well. Look at what some of the Democrats are doing these days. Just [censored] wrong. The republicans will run this planet into a new ice age, or masive heat increase. Mostly greed powers this party.

So we have The green party who will never be taken seriously.
The libritarian party, they have a better shot.

There is also the commusit party. Didn't work for Russia(True comunissim is awsome on paper but will never work in real life)

I would like to see a non career polotician get in for once. Someone who dosen't have to pay back any debts. But I know if that happened he would never get anything done. He would hit grid lock in congress. So I ask you all, what do you think will fix the system we have going here?

I closed it; leave it closed. If you want a debate go to the debate section, not off topic.

None the less heres the standing:
RedMage can't get his head out of his [censored] to actually think of the actual choices that we have in front of us.
Dashocker is being a little [censored].

If this topic continue's on all we'll see every other post is RedMage stating "well it's common sense" as if we didn't hear him the first [censored] time...

Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)

Link for more information about why 3rd parties are good is here

No need to respond to any of this Giz. This is for the interested people out there, you said your point and won't be changing your mind or opening it to any other ways of thinking.

I know they're not likely to change because everyone feels bad for those poor kids with jobs, but I REALLY hate these laws. "Oh sorry, you're a little kid (I'm 15), so you can't get a job cuz people would feel bad about it!";"But I want some [censored] money!!";"That's nice, we can't hire you till you're 16."

Social security is so stupid. If anyone took the time they could make more money than social security gives you, but there's no choice.

Don't mean to be bashing you jonconley, just mentioning a couple things. Thanks to whoever moved this to the "debates and rants" section

Jon moved it due to my comment.

As for social security it does desperatealy need to be canned... Look at all the baby boomers who are now retiring to depend on it; now look at how many less people there are who are paying into it... Now stop to think, if we're having trouble right now paying into it; there will be nothing there for those of us who are under 40... We're [censored] and paying into something we'll never see... Kinda fun ain't it...

agree with both of you on social security

red mage; I think you fail to understand what child labor laws prevented. Its not stopping kids from working at McDonalds after school. Google some stuff on the internet yourself and read about the types of jobs and hours/conditions children endured before such laws.

In my state they say just the opposite, every vote for an independant is a vote for Bush. That Nader is just drawing votes from Kerry. They even have Republicans out getting signatures to get him on the ballot just to draw votes from Kerry. How is that for dirty pool?

The Lacy Peterson law opens doors for pro-lifers. That is why Kerry voted against it.

This whole pro-life/pro-choice situation bothers me. To me it seems that Democrates should be pro-life while republicans should be pro-choice. I mean Republicans want less government less taxes and people to take responsibility for thier actions. They are. They are choosing to take responsibility and terminate thier pregnancy instead of creating more of a burden on the state. While Democrates don't mind creating more taxes and governmental institutions to take care of the single mothers and welfare recipients.

Bush's education reform sucked. His healthcare reform (medicare/medicaid) is crappy too.

I do believe the voting for "lesser of two evils" is a misconception when they are both actually the same evil. Skull and Bones.

<sarcasm>I'm going to vote for Bush so I can live to see WWIII</sarcasm>
But actually if you think the economy is bad right now or even if you think it's good, just imagine when the war is over and all the soldiers come home and they need jobs too...