Great Message About Patriosm - Page 7

Ethar · 07-03-2008, 02:57 PM

I'm write-in voting for Ron Paul. Who's with me?

Otis · 07-03-2008, 03:06 PM

*chirp*

Oizen · 07-03-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethar

I'm write-in voting for Ron Paul. Who's with me?

I'll admit that he was my leading choice for a while but, since his demise from this popularity contest I'm picking someone on the ballot...

QFFE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faabio

Illuminator · 07-03-2008, 03:27 PM

His ideas will be in vogue again after the next revolution.

icKx · 07-03-2008, 05:08 PM

Crabby Patties in 08'!!

Ethar · 07-03-2008, 08:33 PM

One of the reasons while we'll be stuck with bi-partisan shit for the rest of our natural lives is that people won't vote for someone if they don't think they have a chance. Not that that has anything to do with Ron Paul (it would if he ran Libertarian), but just sayin'.

Deson · 07-03-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethar

One of the reasons while we'll be stuck with bi-partisan shit for the rest of our natural lives is that people won't vote for someone if they don't think they have a chance. Not that that has anything to do with Ron Paul (it would if he ran Libertarian), but just sayin'.

To be fair, the most recent two people that didn't have a chance--Ross Perot and Nader, gave Clinton and Bush the election. Can't blame people for being math savvy and knowing some measure of history. Now, if we had run offs that might be a different story.

Morara · 07-03-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethar

One of the reasons while we'll be stuck with bi-partisan shit for the rest of our natural lives is that people won't vote for someone if they don't think they have a chance. Not that that has anything to do with Ron Paul (it would if he ran Libertarian), but just sayin'.

ASCII Art Farts: #2938: LIBERTARIANS (Tue, 2007 Jul 10)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

To be fair, the most recent two people that didn't have a chance--Ross Perot and Nader, gave Clinton and Bush the election. Can't blame people for being math savvy and knowing some measure of history. Now, if we had run offs that might be a different story.

I can understand the Bush argument, but with Clinton, I think half the lunatics that liked Perot would have voted for Clinton had Perot not been on the ballot.

Deson · 07-03-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morara

ASCII Art Farts: #2938: LIBERTARIANS (Tue, 2007 Jul 10)

I can understand the Bush argument, but with Clinton, I think half the lunatics that liked Perot would have voted for Clinton had Perot not been on the ballot.

ASCII Art Farts: #3282: DIVISIVE (Wed, 2008 Jun 18)

Maybe but I wager more than a few just didn't want to vote for Bush but figured Clinton was going to lose anyway.

Ethar · 07-05-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

To be fair, the most recent two people that didn't have a chance--Ross Perot and Nader, gave Clinton and Bush the election. Can't blame people for being math savvy and knowing some measure of history. Now, if we had run offs that might be a different story.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. They won't win so I won't vote for them, which means they can never even come close to winning...