XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, soc.support.fat-acceptance   
   From: findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm   
      
   "The Master"  wrote in message   
      
   > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:   
      
   > > It depends on how badly we need change.  "Playing" with the system,   
   > > no matter how bad it sucks, is just that... play.   
      
   > >> Are you HONESTLY telling me that Kerry would have changed things for the   
   > >> better?  Do you REALLY think that?  Oh, I'm sure he would have changed   
   > >> SOME things, but there is NO WAY you can convince me that his changes   
   > >> would be BETTER.   
      
   > > Nice rant.  I respect your concepts.  I didn't talk about candidates.   
   > > I don't even know where your knee-jerking self came up with that.   
      
   > Thanks, I try...  :)  But seriously though, you are arguing about   
   > "change" in one section, but seem indifferent to the quality of it.  It   
   > almost seems like you are talking about change for sake of having it...   
      
   I gotta' say, when things are as screwed up as the current Coup D'Etat   
   called an 'administration' has made them... you're correct.... *anything*   
   would have be considerably better, or at least deserving of a chance.   
   I can't believe that I threw up my hands in disgust in 2004... that really   
   doesn't say much for me.   
      
   > >> Nader, on the other hand, WOULD have made   
   > >> BETTER change,  period.   
      
   > > By election day, it was blatantly obvious than Nader never stood a   
   > > snowball's chance in hell.   
      
   > I already said that...  When he announced he was running, I knew he didn't   
   > have a chance...  But it wasn't going to stop me from voting for him.   
      
   I probably should have.... but I was suffering from voter's remorse.   ;-)   
      
   > > All I suggest is that when you KNOW that your party is in the shitter,   
   > > make a better decision.  I freely admit that in 2004, this did not apply.   
   >   
   > I accept that concept.  But it's not that simple.  As long as elections   
   > can be privately funded, the "deep pockets" are always lined with special   
   > interest money who can out campaign the other guy.  The "good" choices   
   > are already out of cash, while "Joe Sixpack" only remembers the TV spot   
   > he saw that day.   
      
   Well, you're on the money with that one... complacency and couch potato   
   imbeciles... it's a sad commentary when voters have *no clue* about   
   who they are voting for, that wasn't given to them in 30 seconds or less   
   on Fox News.   
      
   > But since I don't vote Republican or Democrat, my "party" isn't in the   
   > shitter afterall...   
      
   :-\     ok... ok....   
      
   > > FWIW, loudmouth...  I have voted thoroughly independent most of my   
   > > life - and in 2004, for the first time on over 40 years, I did not vote in   
   > > the presidential election.  I knew full well that Bush and Kerry were   
   > > both on the same side.   
   >   
   > ???   
      
   Sorry....   
      
   > Ok...  Then why did you get pi$$y with me in the first place?  Or did I   
   > TOTALLY screw up, and misunderstand your first point?  If I did I'm really   
   > sorry...  UGH!   
      
   Nah... you're ok.  It's east to get flustered on Usenet when some newly   
   crossposted squabble falls into your newsreader and you really don't   
   know who is who.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)