Brewsters MillionsFollow

anyone remember that movie?
Remember the part where his campaign slogan was "none of the above"??
Lets just not vote for either of them. Now, i'm not saying vote for nader or something, but after listening to BOTH speeches RNC DNC, i'm not satisfied with either of them.

Obama says he is about change, but i have yet to hear him commit to anything that might actually work.
McCain is like an unholy fusion of bush and chaney, with combat experiance. (Plus i'm not totally unconvinced he's a "Manchurian Candidate" of the vietnamese.)

So, lets vote for something we all can agree on. Lets vote for "None of the Above"


As a side note, anyone else actually listen to mccain? he said he would have the govmn't pay the differance between the old salaries and the new salaries for the ex-workers of places like detroit. Also he mentioned cutting the 700 billion we spend on foreign aid, forgetting the fact that we CANT because the aid is part of treaties and such for letting us build military bases / helping share intelligance.

This is what happen when dumb people post.

I vote Aye.

hay so i saw this south park episode were they had to pick between a giant douche and a **** sandwich and it turned out better to not vote at all

But P.Diddy will shoot your ***.

If you are too lazy to vote then that is fine, but don't insult the intelligence of everyone around you and yourself by pretending it has anything to do with a moral objection. Only fools believe passive choices are equivalent to "washing their hands." Having the ability to affect an outcome and choosing not to is equivalent to making an active choice.

Ah, the battle cry of those who are incapable of change.

2 things about ideas for change:
-You have to give them a chance before you can say it won't work.
-Just because someone else tried it and it failed, doesn't mean it will this time as they likely implemented it incorrectly (assuming it hasn't been tried multiple times)

I am genuinely saddened by this news. I'm not sure how I'm going to make it through each day now. ****, I don't know how I'm going to make it through the next hour!

Wanna see what happens when dumb people vote?

Health care, tax policy and the wars. You have now heard of them.

Go find out about them. There are dramatic differences between candidates.

For the record, I disagree with both on all counts, but Obama has my vote because he will put in place the closest policies to my own that are possible under the circumstances. Of course Obama may not get what he wants - it depends on congress.

By the way, historically, the US does not spend close to US$700 billion per year on foreign aide. Perhaps now we do, but the vast majority of that must be going to Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you really feel both are totally incompatible with your point of view, register to vote and vote for the third party candidate closest to your point of view.

If enough people vote in that way, one or both major parties will move toward that group.

Odd you should mention Perot.

I vote for Perot: the national debt is very important to me. In 1992 I was unsure about socialized medicine, so the relative benefit of Clinton over HW Bush was uncear. Now I am certain the only realistic way to decrease the debt is to go to a vastly cheaper system of medicine for the US. The only available system widely used in first world nations, basically the only system other then our own, fits the bill.

Lots of people voted Perot and the deficits were reduced under Clinton. Perot doesn't run in 2000 (perhaps if he did no one would vote for him, I don't know) and the size of the debt has been a non-issue ever since.

Borrowing at the rate of about US$1000 per person per year is insane. It is effectively the biggest tax increase in history, but hasn't occurred yet. It is also by far the greatest threat to US national security. Terrorism is a tactic used since biblical times and has overthrown basically no sizable government ever. As such it is impossible to eliminate and not a serious threat. Excessive debt, on the other hand is the opposite, in both cases.

Bush "W" will go down in history as horrific for many, many reasons, but principle among them will be the size of the deficits he ran.

There would definitely be an economic hit, however in the long run it will be impossible for US companies to compete against foreign companies due to high health care costs. Health care is a huge fraction of the economy, and the savings in going to a state system are potentially huge. The US auto industry is a prime example.

Further, it is the best thing for small businesses: right now the vast majority of employees will not switch to a company which may not offer health care for months to years and dealing with health care providers is virtually a full time job.

To me, it would be immoral to start a business hire people and not offer them health care.