Yuck! Met Al Gore in person at the rally at the Sarasota International Airport and didnt like him at all

Already met George Bush too and like him better!

Which you perfer? :D

I like Bush a lot more.

Bush def.

SarasotaWeb, since Gore invented the internet, I would ask for his help in configuring a DNS :D

Well, if you don't like Bush or Gore there is always Ralph Nader with the green party :D

I do not need to vote during this election because I live in Texas (um, imo W will likely win Texas) and the manner in which the electoral college is set-up, it would not matter if I voted for any other candidate.
That aside, Gore seems alright to me --- pretty moderate, shouldn't have any policy changes.
The thing about W that really bothers me is that he partied <emphasis>hard</emphasis> up to the age of 40. If someone was not mature until 40 and would like to be President of the United States, then I would be concerned.

Stephaine,

Whenever I see you registered voteforchicken2000.com, that was my idea for chicken until today I saw it and I think I should take a credit of it becuase I make that domain up in my mind for Chicken.

Just my 2 cents

Thanks
Regards,

Now I could get used to this...

"I gave you the Internet, and I can take it away."

-Al Gore (the real one!) on David Letterman. That was pretty darn funny. :)

Originally posted by Stephanie
I wasn't really sure who I liked until the debate last night. And Wow! I thought Gore was pretty impressive. He's terribly clever. Yes OVERLORD GORE WHAT IS YOUR BIDDNG. ooops! I mean I think I'll vote for him.



Even though Im NOT into politics at all :D
I totally agree with ya Stephanie...I watched the debate myself with interest and Gore was much more impressive in all areas, I thought! Hey...I live in Texas too :D

Hi All,
I support GWB all the way. And yes I am a Texan. As the saying going, "I wasn't born here, but got here as soon as I coould!"

There was an interesting article in the Austin American Statesman, that detailed some of the higher profile tech people and who they supported. Two were, Michael Dell who supported Bush, while Steve Jobs supported Gore.

Vi'va GWB!

~ Marcus

On a serious note, since the issue of politics came up, please consider the following:

It doesn't matter whether a Democrat or Republican gets elected (to Congress or the presidency), things get worse. We lose more of our rights in the gradual and continual move towards socialism, the budget deficit grows (despite games over figures), and the bureacracy grows bigger, more impersonal, and less responsive.

For almost 30 years, there have been better choices. The Libertarian Party has had representatives elected to Congress and to various state and local offices throughout the country. Presently, there are over 300 Libertarians in office. Even so, the LP is largely ignored by the media, with CSPAN being a notable exception.

The LP believes in Jeffersonian government, i.e. respecting the rights of the people to choose for themselves, a minimalist government, and the principle that a government governs best when it governs least.

Think the Democrats were the first to have a woman as a vice presidential condidate? They surely think so, and will tell you so. However, the Libertarian Party beat them to it by a good many years with Theodora (Tonie) Nathan, in 1972 on the LP's first presidential ballot. In 1992, it was Nancy Lord as VP candidate, and Jo Jorgensen in 1996.

You can vote your conscience or continue to vote against the candidate you despise least. Personally, I feel voting is to express my beliefs as represented by the candidate I vote for, not to pick who I think will win.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with an evil.

Think differently. Think Libertarian.

The Libertarian Party, the Party of Principle, http://lp.org


[Edited by Duster on 10-12-2000 at 10:36 PM]

WOW! My post got real big alreayd, over 170 page views!

Now I m getting popluar am I? :D

But GO GO GO BUSH! :P

Joseph, :rolleyes:

If you really wanna be popular, get a thread with 800 pageviews then we'll think about it :)

Kuro5hin (http://www.kuro5hin.org) has an interesting discussion concerning the exclusion of Nader and third party candidates from the debates:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2000/10/4/13157/3080
Although I do not care for the third party choices, I thought someone might find this info interesting.

It is interesting, austin, though not suprising to me. The one thing the Democrats and Republicans truly stand together on is excluding any other parties from participating. In Florida, we had the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country. If you wanted to get on the ballot as anything other than a Republicrat, you had higher requirements than they did.

That was finally changed last year when the 20 year review of the state constitution came up. The LP of Florida worked with enlightened members of the CRC (Constitutional Review Commission) and were instrumental in making changes to have the same requirements for any party. It took further efforts to keep the fees the same for all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, or lack of it. Those Republicrats don't give up easily. Once they had to allow others in the game, they wanted to charge the other players more.

The media collaborates with them, whether intentionally or not. Unless one has great personal wealth, as Ross Perot and Stever Forbes do, or a bit of fame, as Ralph Nader does, it is next to impossible to even be acknowledged as existing, much less get mentioned.

It's a shame, especially since there are more and better choices to be had. The Republicrats want you to have freedom of choice, as long as you choose one of them.

BC, 800 pageviews? There is about 600 to go, :D

I'm getting better this time, am I eh?

Everyone, post more :)

BTW, Al Gore will visit Sarasota again MAYBE next week, whoooo!

Bush.

lol... sounds like Quayle is making a come back.
Check this out:
http://slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp

Much of the media does have an admittedly liberal bias. That aside, it's easy for them to make people look foolish. Many people have slips of the tongue, use the wrong words at times, and makes mistakes. It's also easy if you take things out of context, so easy to do with one liners.

I remember an interview with Bush where he was asked who the present heads of state are for several countries. He knew some, others he didn't. The interviewer asked if he thought he should know them all, and how he felt about it. He replied, in a way you would have to hear to fully understand, that they get to pick the questions.

His meaning was clear. It's easy to make someone look ignorant when you choose the questions.

I'd like to see the media do similar reviews on itself. I can name two fairly recent things that they, almost all of them, displayed their ignorance and stupidity on. Indeed, displayed isn't the right word. They proclaimed their stupidity to the world.

One is the y2k issue, which some called a virus and others referred to as the millenium bug. Since the millenium didn't start in 2000, that was entirely wrong. Rather than educating themselves about the y2k issue, they chose to propagate ignorance and the paranoid delusions of others. In so doing, they added to the mass hysteria over the issue. They could have gone to y2k.com to learn the simple truth, but ignored that simple remedy and broadcast stupidity instead. They could have educated themselves and performed a service in educating the public. What a wasted opportunity.

That website was active at the time and it did a good job of explaining the whole thing in simple terms. It was later bought by CNET.

I know I wasn't the only one who understood that there was no cause for concern. Anyway, on January 1, the whole thing finally became the non event it was all along. None of the gloom and doom predictions came true. You'd think they could have gotten it right.

Then again, maybe not. They can't even count to 10. Despite the best efforts of the U.S. agency that keeps track of the official time to educate them, the media persists in reporting that the next millenium began in January of this year. Anyone who can count to 10 knows that the number 1 begins the next unit and that 0 ends it. That's why the next millenium begins in 2001, and didn't start in 2000.

If you have a ten dollar bill, nine singles, and 99 cents in change ($19.99), and get a penny, you've finished up your first $20 (and can trade it in on a $20 bill). You don't start saving towards your next dollar until you get another penny, or $20.01.

We have news reporting media that is ignorant, chooses to report lies when it knows the truth (which makes it stupid as well) and can't count to 10 properly.

I would love to see them report that about themselves. Schlock reporters is what we have. They must have all graduated from the National Enquirer School of Yellow (or Schlock) Journalism.

Here's a question for all those hacks:

Why don't they report on candidates from all the political parties, or even all those who have elected representatives in office?

Bush was right on one point, it's easy when you get to choose the questions. They wouldn't do as well as he did if I posed a few questions to them. I'd welcome the opportunity.

[Edited by Duster on 10-13-2000 at 04:18 AM]

Originally posted by Annette
. . Dubya . . . LOL Late nights watching Conan?

Originally posted by Annette
Ideally, we would have stronger candidates from all parties. Unfortunately, our political system does not encourage it. Just as unfortunately, no one seems to care.


We do. However, the voters, who are part of the political system, dont vote for them. They have the lion's share of the blame for the a lack of change in political leadership. It's disgusting, especially when you consider how our founding fathers suffered from the declaration of Independence.

It would be an affront to their memory and efforts to call it courage to vote for someone different. Instead most voters remain ignorant and help fulfill the self-fulfilling prophecy that other, better candidates won't be elected. They continue to vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils, ensuring an evil remains in office, and maintain the status quo.

We the people are to blame for that.