"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria

Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just confirmed
that theory.


Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
--
Dave

Food for thought. May cost more or
perhaps the same if the credit market
is allowed to correct on its own. The
added benefit is the credit market won't risk
doing the same thing or similar again
in the future. As a result, such risks taken
by borrowers won't exist either.

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
.au...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria

Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.


Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.

If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent chance
to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice voting
for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal reasons and is
much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for many reasons. Going
back to what I said, an exercise in choice between lesser evils.
--
Dave

Dioclese wrote:
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria
Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.

Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent chance
to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice voting
for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal reasons and is
much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for many reasons. Going
back to what I said, an exercise in choice between lesser evils.

Couple of statements I noted:

Jesse Ventura said voting for the lessor of evils, you're still voting
for evil.

Rush Limbaugh said that if your team did not make it to the Super Bowl,
then you root for the team you want to win.

I prefer the latter. Bob Barr, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are not in the
game.

In article ,
Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

Dioclese wrote:
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria
Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.

Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent chance
to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice voting
for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal reasons and is
much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for many reasons.
Going
back to what I said, an exercise in choice between lesser evils.

Couple of statements I noted:

Jesse Ventura said voting for the lessor of evils, you're still voting
for evil.

Rush Limbaugh said that if your team did not make it to the Super Bowl,
then you root for the team you want to win.

I prefer the latter. Bob Barr, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are not in the
game.

The Republicrats are going to win because they represent the owners of
the country. My recommendation is to vote third party (any party) and
support any initiative that calls for proportional representation.

I hope I'm wrong but the country seems to be sliding into neo-liberal
economics. The type that visited Chile, under Pinochet, and Argentina
i.e. privatization of the public sector, massive cuts in social
programs, and force to suppress dissent.

eep those gardens going. It may be that we really will NEED them.
--

Billy
Obama and/or McCain Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
Dioclese wrote:
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria
Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.

Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the
voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative
not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent
chance to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice
voting for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal
reasons and is much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for
many reasons. Going back to what I said, an exercise in choice between
lesser evils.

Couple of statements I noted:

Jesse Ventura said voting for the lessor of evils, you're still voting for
evil.

Rush Limbaugh said that if your team did not make it to the Super Bowl,
then you root for the team you want to win.

I prefer the latter. Bob Barr, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are not in the
game.

If Rush is comparing N.L. vs A.L. with our 2 party system, he isn't
considering some may just want the N.L or A.L. team to lose, not caring if
the opponent wins.
If Jesse is talking generally about our 2 party system, accurate statement.

If we continually get the thought pressed in our brains a 3rd party
candidate has no chance to win, even if that is our preference, we may vote
for the spoiler in the 2 party system candidates.

I see a pattern here in my past replies... S.S.D.D.
--
Dave