PDA

View Full Version : Who will you vote for?



Northern Paladin
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 08:46 AM
Who will you vote for? Bush or Kerry?

FadeTheButcher
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 09:27 AM
I don't vote anymore.

Newgrange
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 09:49 AM
George Bush
He represents the Republican Party, if you watch both coventions you will see why I would vote for the Republican Candidate.

Democrats= Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton and liberal Hollywood celebrities.

Republicans= Middle America , a strong defense and freedom from the idea that liberal goverment programs will help you.

8Man
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Voting FOR either of those criminals indicates your consent to be governed by that regime. They both deserve to lose. At this point it looks like the system still favors the jug-eared moron. John Cohen (Kerry) is probably the worst of a bad lot.

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 01:16 PM
I finally broke down and registered, but I registered Libertarian so I won't get to vote in the primaries. I think I'll write in David Duke or myself.

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 01:18 PM
Voting FOR either of those criminals indicates your consent to be governed by that regime. They both deserve to lose. At this point it looks like the system still favors the jug-eared moron. John Cohen (Kerry) is probably the worst of a bad lot.Ja, I don't see how anyone can vote for any of the mainstream candidates with a clear conscience. They are both dolts of the highest order.

JoeDas
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Bush is the worst president in any of our lifetimes. So I'll vote for Kerry if for no other reason than because Bush has got to go. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck if either of them had a real chance at beating that crook Bush and his cronies

Mistress Klaus
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 06:04 PM
In Australia it is compulsory by law to vote. ;( We have an election coming up soon also).
I wouldn't mind so much if there was some decent candidates to vote for.

Those Bush & Kerry bozo's look just as bad as our ones...

I am voting for Count Vladimir of the Cat Slumber Party (see picture below)...He stands for eradication of all vermin, comfort and for the preservation of trees. :D :P

Aristotle
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 10:40 PM
EYTYXEITE!
Dear Fellows,
yes,I'm ready to vote for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck ! It will the best for America as well as for the rest of world!
Kindest Regards!
Bush is the worst president in any of our lifetimes. So I'll vote for Kerry if for no other reason than because Bush has got to go. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck if either of them had a real chance at beating that crook Bush and his cronies

Northern Paladin
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 10:51 PM
I don't like any of the candiates so I wouldn't vote at all. Not that my vote or the Popular vote for that matter will determine who the President is. The Popular vote is just there to give the illusion of America being a True Democracy where the voice of the average man matters.

In the end the "Electoral Vote" is what really matters. A President can be elected to Office even if he doesn't win the Popular vote of the American people but gets the "Electoral Vote" shady if you ask me. It's happened before. in the 2000 elections Gore lost even though he got the Popular Vote.

JoeDas
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 11:06 PM
I don't like any of the candiates so I wouldn't vote at all. Not that my vote or the Popular vote for that matter will determine who the President is. The Popular vote is just there to give the illusion of America being a True Democracy where the voice of the average man matters.

In the end the "Electoral Vote" is what really matters. A President can be elected to Office even if he doesn't win the Popular vote of the American people but gets the "Electoral Vote" shady if you ask me. It's happened before. in the 2000 elections Gore lost even though he got the Popular Vote.Do you live in a "swing state"? If you do, you should vote for Kerry. Not because you like Kerry per se, but because Bush has got to go...it's extremely important IMO that Bush loses this election, it doesn't even matter who defeats him. The United States will always be spit upon by the rest of the world so long as Bush and the rest of those crooks are in power. Sure, you might say "Kerry is just as bad", and maybe that's true, but the simple fact is that Bush has got to go, and it's not important who replaces him

Telperion
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 12:43 AM
I am voting for Count Vladimir of the Cat Slumber Party (see picture below)...He stands for eradication of all vermin, comfort and for the preservation of trees. :D :P
It's probably debatable whether it would be positive or negative to have a P.M. who sleeps for 90% of the day...

Telperion
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 12:48 AM
The United States will always be spit upon by the rest of the world so long as Bush and the rest of those crooks are in power.
A lot of anti-Americanism in the world today is anti-Bushism which gets projected on the American people generally. But, if Americans do vote to re-elect Bush, their standing in the world will continue to decline. Bush is seen, at best, as a pawn of venal corporate interests.

Kerry is about as exciting as a toaster, but at least he doesn't go out of his way to deliberately offend people.

JoeDas
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 02:12 AM
The Swing-State Map:
http://swingstateproject.typepad.com/swingstateproject/maps/swing_states_2004.gif

As you can see, the yellow and green states are the so-called "swing states". Everyone knows that the election will be decided in these states, and so if you live in one of them, I beg you to not vote for Bush, or better yet, vote for Kerry. or Nader. Or Ronald McDonald. Anybody. Or Nobody. Just not Bush

As Telperion points out, the only way we can drag America's name out of the mud in the international community is to throw Bush out.

WarMaiden
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 04:25 AM
In Australia it is compulsory by law to vote. ;( We have an election coming up soon also).
I wouldn't mind so much if there was some decent candidates to vote for.

Those Bush & Kerry bozo's look just as bad as our ones...

I am voting for Count Vladimir of the Cat Slumber Party (see picture below)...He stands for eradication of all vermin, comfort and for the preservation of trees. :D :PWhat happens if you don't vote? I think Kerry is a piece of shit, proabortion turd! If i had to vote i would vote Bush!

RusViking
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 10:37 AM
I will vote for George Bush. Also nice to get the whole package.....Condi, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Couldn't put a better group together.

Krampus
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 03:28 PM
I can't bring myself to vote for either one. Out of all the candidates Ralph Nadar's probably the best choice, because he is one of the few who doesn't support this Orwellian Patriot Act, which is anything but patriotic. Nadar also isn't part of the whole secret society bs that Kerry and Bush participate in.

JoeDas
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 10:01 PM
I will vote for George Bush. Also nice to get the whole package.....Condi, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Couldn't put a better group together.Don't you see that the whole world hates America because of Bush? The most foolish thing we Americans could do is re-elect him. Unless of course we want to be a pariah state...

Sigrun Christianson
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 10:04 PM
I will vote for George Bush. Also nice to get the whole package.....Condi, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Couldn't put a better group together.Please tell me you are being sarcastic.. ?

Licht
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 12:12 AM
I wont vote because i dont live in the USA so i cant vote even if i wanted to vote.

Ewergrin
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 03:03 AM
A lot of anti-Americanism in the world today is anti-Bushism which gets projected on the American people generally. But, if Americans do vote to re-elect Bush, their standing in the world will continue to decline. Bush is seen, at best, as a pawn of venal corporate interests.

Kerry is about as exciting as a toaster, but at least he doesn't go out of his way to deliberately offend people.

No, instead he and his Jew wife will have us all eating, breathing and sleeping in Heinz ketchup, take away all of our freedoms, allow liberal Judges to bend and shape the constituition until it is completely unreconizable and bereft of common sense, minimalize our military forces until we have not the ability to protect ourselves on a national level, take away our guns so that we will be unable to protect ourselves from the murderers and degenerates who stalk this land enjoying the same (ever decreasing) freedoms that we do, and tax us to death, all so that they can seem fair and compassionate.

Meanwhile, none of the upper eschalon members of the Government enjoy the same dismal, depressing services like we do, such as our failing Social Security system. They (every government stooge) eat at a different table, eating a different meal, drinking different beverages, all the while claiming their only interest is to take care of their constituents.

Bullshit.

This country was bought and paid for a long time ago, and the bullshit that they throw at us every four years is nothing but a chirade, meant to confuse and blind the average citizen. Same speeches every time, by all parties, yet nothing changes. Voting is a complete waste of time. I will not do it because of the simple fact that there will never be a candidate worthy of voting for. Everyone is full of shit, and everyone is only looking out for themselves. No one really cares about the folk.

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 03:28 AM
I wont vote because i dont live in the USA so i cant vote even if i wanted to vote.This is the most reasonable answer I've read yet. :D

Telperion
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 04:25 AM
This country was bought and paid for a long time ago, and the bullshit that they throw at us every four years is nothing but a chirade, meant to confuse and blind the average citizen. Same speeches every time, by all parties, yet nothing changes...Everyone is full of shit, and everyone is only looking out for themselves. No one really cares about the folk.
I take that as a given...


Voting is a complete waste of time. I will not do it because of the simple fact that there will never be a candidate worthy of voting for.
There isn't really one worth voting for. But, some might do worse damage than others. I would argue Bush has done enormous damage to America's standing in the world, for what that is worth. But, I can understand why someone would find voting for Kerry as an alternative to be extremely unpalatable.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 08:10 AM
I wont vote because i dont live in the USA so i cant vote even if i wanted to vote.

Such little things don't stop millions of illegal Mexican aliens from registering and voting in US elections.

I don't want to register since this means giving up precious personal information to the government, but if I were to do so I would write-in the name "Bobby Fisher".

Ewergrin
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 04:37 PM
I take that as a given...


There isn't really one worth voting for. But, some might do worse damage than others. I would argue Bush has done enormous damage to America's standing in the world, for what that is worth. But, I can understand why someone would find voting for Kerry as an alternative to be extremely unpalatable.


My sentiments exactly.

Although I certainly cannot stand Kerry, Bush is just as bad. In this case, one has to chose between the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, there really is no right choice to be made, unless one wants to virtually waste his vote by writing in a completely different name, in which case one might as well write in Pee Wee Herman or Gandalf the Grey, since voting is pointless anyways.

Zyklop
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Is there anything like a "minimal participation" rule in the American election system and if so, what happens if it isn´t accomplished?

Sigrun Christianson
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Is there anything like a "minimal participation" rule in the American election system and if so, what happens if it isn´t accomplished?No, I don't think so. At least I've never heard of such a thing, but voting isn't my area of expertise. If only 2% of the electorate voted, then that 2% elects the president. From what I've heard on CNN, less than 50% of eligible Americans actually vote. But, who cares anyway? If 100% voted, we'd still be screwed because there isn't a single decent candidate to vote for.

Anyone remember the MTV Rock the Vote promo? Do they still do that? That was great. A semi-nude Madonna wrapped in an American flag telling mindless MTV drones to get out and vote. How dignified. :rotfl

Mistress Klaus
Monday, August 9th, 2004, 07:19 AM
It's probably debatable whether it would be positive or negative to have a P.M. who sleeps for 90% of the day...

:D I think the percentage is closer to 75%. Wouldn't make much difference really. Maybe today's heads of state should get more sleep.. :P

Hitler's sleeping habits were much like a cat. Most active at night. :D ...

TisaAnne
Monday, August 9th, 2004, 08:00 AM
Bush is the worst president in any of our lifetimes. So I'll vote for Kerry if for no other reason than because Bush has got to go. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck if either of them had a real chance at beating that crook Bush and his croniesI agree...Kerry would never have been a choice of mine, but Bush is a bastard and has made an even bigger mess of this country (is that even possible??!!!) than it was in when Clinton left office.

Watching Bush's adds on TV and seeing his speaches makes me sick...the only thing he is playing off of is "Homeland Security"...he hasn't done a damn thing for this country except make everyone believe that he is keeping us safe.

Atleast Kerry talks about the "issues"....I don't think that I really trust him, (he kind of looks like a slimy creep), but he discusses what is important to middle-class Americans: affordable healthcare/prescriptions, more jobs, social security for the elderly, better schools, stuff we will benefit from. He also has many promising plans to fix the economy that Bush has obliterated with his juevenile Army games in Iraq, and I would feel more militarily protected by someone who has actually seen combat...not some honky-tonk draft dodger.

There is something that Kerry said on one of his commercials that really sealed the deal for me...it was something like: "While Bush is building firehouses in Iraq, they are being closed down in towns and cities all over this nation"...It's true.

Bush is so obsessed with his war that he is dragging this country into another depression...it is sensesless and selfish and he should be shot for allowing his personal vendettas to overshadow the needs of this country and it's people. I don't pay taxes for him to drop bombs on Muslims.

This year....I happen to be a Democrat. I would be a communist if I thought there was a running Commie canditate that had a chance of winning. ANYONE is better than Bush!

Licht
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 10:56 PM
This is the most reasonable answer I've read yet. :DI am a very reasonable man ;).
Did you not know that!Ok i might be a bit insane but isn't a bit insanity good for your health :P?
And it keeps live interesting and thats for sure :D.

Newgrange
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 02:01 AM
any communist candidates in the 2004 U.S. presidential elections?

JoeDas
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 02:24 AM
This guy is the closest there is to a Communist in the election:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ75354

there just aren't many Communists in America so there is no use for them to field a candidate. I recently heard that CPUSA (Communist Party USA) membership had dwindled to around 2,000 people in the entire country! As late as the 1980s they were getting tens of thousands of votes in the presidential election, but now they can't even field a candidate :lol

Newgrange
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 02:56 AM
How about Howard Dean as a protest write-in vote. His strong opposition to the war in Iraq is the probable reason the news media,such as "The Drudge report" for example, ran the story about him looking unfit to be president because of his so called outburst after the Iowa caucuses. I thought Dean was just being humorous,whether or not you like his policies, he didn't deserve being labeled 'nuts'. We all lose out when we judge a candidate on a photo/video clip or misspoken qoute rather than judging them on their policies.

Newgrange
Tuesday, August 17th, 2004, 04:33 AM
speech Howard Dean gave after Iowa caucuses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39758000/rm/_39758595_dean03_speech_vi.ram)

Newgrange
Friday, September 3rd, 2004, 08:39 PM
These websites contain video, audio and full text versions of speeches given at the conventions:


Democratic Convention (http://www.dems2004.org/site/pp.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=92959)

Republican Convention (http://www.2004nycgop.org/)

Nehaj
Friday, September 3rd, 2004, 10:07 PM
Gandalf the Grey
If you vote Gandalf, please vote Gandalf the White. :D

Newgrange
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 01:52 AM
Global opinion favours Kerry over Bush, says poll
By Joanna Chung in Washington and Daniel Dombey in Brussels
Published: September 8 2004 20:48 | Last updated: September 8 2004 20:48

World opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of John Kerry, the Democrat candidate, to win the US presidential election, according to a poll covering 35 countries.

In 30 countries, many of them staunch allies of the US, the public favoured Mr Kerry over President George W. Bush by a two-to-one margin, according to a poll conducted by GlobeScan, a public opinion group, and the University of Maryland. Only Poland, Nigeria and the Philippines backed Mr Bush, while India and Thailand were a statistical tie.

Both the poll and a separate survey of transatlantic trends, released on Thursday, show rising international mistrust of the US.

An average of 53 per cent of GlobeScan's respondents said foreign policy under Mr Bush made them feel worse about the US. In Germany, 74 per cent of respondents said they backed Mr Kerry against only 10 per cent for Mr Bush. In France only 5 per cent supported the president. In the UK, the margin was 47 per cent to 16 in favour of the challenger.

In China, 52 per cent of those asked backed Mr Kerry against Mr Bush.

The Globescan poll comes as the US presidential race, in which Mr Bush has taken a lead, begins in earnest ahead of the November 2 election. Its release coincides with a survey by the German Marshall Fund of the US and Italy's Compagnia di San Paolo, which also underlines the transatlantic divide. According to this second study, Transatlantic Trends 2004, 58 per cent of Europeans hold that strong US leadership is undesirable and 76 per cent disapprove of President Bush's international policies.

However, most people on both sides of the Atlantic maintained that Europe and the US had not grown further apart.

But the Transatlantic Trends survey of 11,000 Americans and Europeans also revealed strong splits between Democrats and Republicans in the US on issues such as the role of the United Nations and the invasion of Iraq. While 84 per cent of Republicans believed the US is sometimes justified in bypassing the UN, only 40 per cent of Democrats agreed. Although 63 per cent of Democrats disapproved of the presence of US troops in Iraq, 86 per cent of Republicans approved.

A third poll of 798 Americans also released on Wednesday showed that 74 per cent of US voters would be unaffected by global attitudes about the presidential race.

Vestmannr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 03:06 AM
I'm leaning towards voting for Kerry, then preparing to battle him for four years and make sure he doesn't get a second try. I think it is too late for much else, and four more years of Bush will damage us here, and all of the rest of the world too much.

Unfortunately, in America a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Some states will not even let one write in a candidate, or add third party candidates to the ballot. One pretty much is stuck with Republican or Democrat. The odd thing about this is that while it is true that only about half of Americans are even registered to vote, only about 10 percent of Americans are registered as Republicans and only about 20 percent of Americans are registered as Democrats. 20 percent of registered voters then are 'swing voters', which means they can go either way. Last election many swung towards Bush (I won't say 'right' because there is nothing 'right wing' about that party anymore.) The swing vote could go either way. However, that does mean that (considering the winners) that only about one third of the American population decides for everyone else.

JoeDas
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 03:15 AM
only about one third of the American population decides for everyone else.Or if you look at it another way: 50 million people voted for Bush in 2000. There are 295 million people living in America today.
50 / 295 x 100 = 16.9%

Less than 17% of Americans voted for Bush!

Vestmannr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 03:31 AM
Less than 17% of Americans voted for Bush!

Oh, that's sad. That is less than the total number of people of German and English descent (about 18 to 19% together.) (Edited: Err, mistake 42.8 million reporting German descent, 8 million reporting French, 24.5 million reporting 'English'.)

I think the unanswered question would be: if the 'silent majority' could be mobilized to vote, which way would we swing? The sheer number of non-involved people *could* make a party strong enough to challenge the two parties. But, it would probably take some intense volunteering and money for advertising, organisation, etc.

My guess is that looking at the numbers then, that with about 2 million Jews, and 23 million African Americans (probably the two most politically mobilized ethnic groups in America), and more than 15 million Hispanics (also highly mobilized politically). I'm guessing about 10 million Whites/Asians/Others voted Democrat as well alongside the mostly Democrat vote of the aforementioned groups (I'm guessing majority vote, with near 1/3rd of Hispanics for Bush - first President to do Spanish language campaign commercials himself.) The Republicans with only 50 million, if we *wrongly* assumed they were all 'White' would still leave approximately *160 million Americans of European descent not involved in either party*!!! Both an opportunity and a travesty. I really, really doubt that the great majority is 'fine' with how things are, or with either political choice they are offered. Getting them to realize the power they could wield would be the real obstacle.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 03:32 AM
I will not allow worldwide popularity contests decide my leader. I vote for Bush, so he can continue working on what he would leave unfinished otherwise. I do not want a deluge of other abberances from the self-proclaimed Jewish Democrats, eating away at America more than the Republicans have by their "mainstream American" values. It is enough for me to curtail the rainbow kingdom of diversity most likely to be enacted by Kerry's election.

Gay pride variations of U.S. flags

Last modified: 2003-05-17 by rick wyatt (rick@crwflags.com)
Keywords: rainbow flag (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywordr.html#rainbow%20flag) | canton (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywordc.html#canton) | stars: 50 (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywords.html#stars:%2050) | star: 5 points (white) (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywords.html#star:%205%20points%20%28wh ite%29) | united states (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywordu.html#united%20states) | yacht ensign (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywordy.html#yacht%20ensign) | maryland (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywordm.html#maryland) | stripes: 6 (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywords.html#stripes:%206) | stripes: 13 (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywords.html#stripes:%2013) | stars: 13 (http://flagspot.net/flags/keywords.html#stars:%2013) | anchor (white) (http://flagspot.net/flags/keyworda.html#anchor%20%28white%29) |
Links: FOTW homepage (http://flagspot.net/flags/index.html) | search (http://flagspot.net/flags/search.html) | disclaimer and copyright (http://flagspot.net/flags/disclaim.html) | write us (fotw@palnatoke.net) | mirrors (http://flagspot.net/flags/mirror.html)



http://flagspot.net/images/u/us_gay1.gif (http://flagspot.net/images/u/us_gay1.gif)
by Zeljko Heimer and António Martins, 21 January 2000





Description and origin of the flag (http://flagspot.net/flags/us_gay.html#descr)
Variant with white stripes (http://flagspot.net/flags/us_gay.html#w)
Gay U.S. yacht ensign (http://flagspot.net/flags/us_gay.html#usye)
Gay Flag of Maryland (http://flagspot.net/flags/us_gay.html#md)
See also:



Sexual orientation flags (http://flagspot.net/flags/sex.html)
Description and origin of the flag

The gay pride rainbow flag (http://flagspot.net/flags/sex-rb.html) with a U.S. canton (http://flagspot.net/flags/us.html) is an often seen variation (http://flagspot.net/flags/sex-rb_v.html).
Steve Kramer, 6 May 1996

These flags were a regular production item at the Paramount Flag Co. before 1978 and the subsequent adoption of the rainbow as a symbol of Gay Pride. It was popular with the "Rainbow Children" and other similar counter culture groups. It still is, and as they are quick to point out, «They had it first!». They were used at Rainbow Gatherings. They were also made by Colors of the Wind in Santa Monica in the 1970's (I think theirs started with a purple stripe). It is called “New Glory” and predated the "Gay Nation" rainbow by at least six years, probably longer. Also available was a "Rainbow" First Navy Jack (http://flagspot.net/flags/us-fnj.html) before 1978.
James Ferrigan, 20 August 1999

The Rainbow Family has used the "New Glory" flag for many years. The canton of stars represents all of the constellations — united, or the U.S. depending on who you talk to. The stripes of many colors represent all of the tribes of the earth. The symbolism being that all of the different peoples or tribes can come together in peace and harmony. At least in a flag! And hopefully in person. The “Rainbow Family of Living Light”, also known as the “Rainbow Family” is an international, non-hierarchical, non-organized, loose-knit group of hippies. Ages vary from 1960's flower power veterans to new-borns. All decisions are made by consensus. Anyone who cares about the earth and their fellow man is automatically a member. That includes you! Of course, membership lists are not kept, acceptance of a person is automatic upon that person showing up at a "gathering". Sort of a hippie camporee! Or peace festival. National gatherings in the U.S. draw about 20 to 40 thousand people. It is not a gay organization. Gays are of course included, but as human beings, brothers and sisters, not as predominant or exclusive, or even excluded. Just more people. In about the same proportions as the general population — whatever that may be! I am including a couple of URLs for background information, and a better explanation. One of which shows the Rainbow "New Glory" flag in use:



At this site, click on the Photo Gallery (on the lower left side) and then click on the 1987 gathering pictures. [Warning: non-erotical female breast nudity ahead!]
http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow.html
For more information. This is a review of Dr. Nimans book on the Rainbows.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~niman/rainbow.html (http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/%7Eniman/rainbow.html)
Kevin McNamara, 9 September 1999 Variant with white stripes

http://flagspot.net/images/u/us_gay2.gif (http://flagspot.net/images/u/us_gay2.gif)
by Zeljko Heimer and António Martins, 21 Jan 2000

I was at this years Halsted Street Marketdays again yesterday. I noted one flag worth mentioning, the U.S. flag with the 50-star canton as usual (http://flagspot.net/flags/us_gay.html#top), but the stripes were the gay colors (six of them) plus with white stripe between those colors where only the red would appear in a U.S. flag (http://flagspot.net/flags/us.html).
Steve Stringfellow, 16 Aug 1999

Gay U.S. Yacht Ensign

http://flagspot.net/images/u/us%7Eytrb.gif (http://flagspot.net/images/u/us%7Eytrb.gif) by Rick Wyatt, 2 December 2001

This is the six-striped Rainbow Flag with a canton similar to the U.S. Yacht Ensign (http://flagspot.net/flags/us%7Eyte.html) — blue, with thirteen white stars in a ring around a white fouled anchor. The example I saw was nylon, and I believe the dimensions were 2'×3' (61 cm × 91 cm).
Steve Kramer, 16 Mar 1999

Gay Flag of Maryland

http://flagspot.net/images/u/us-md_gl.gif (http://flagspot.net/images/u/us-md_gl.gif)
Steve Kramer, 16 Mar 1999

This is simply the Rainbow Flag with the Maryland State Flag (http://flagspot.net/flags/us-md.html) in the canton, which I saw again in nylon, in 2'×3' and 3'×5' (91 cm × 155 cm). A rather busy flag, but at least nominally heraldically correct (http://flagspot.net/flags/heraldry.html).
Steve Kramer, 16 Mar 1999

Vestmannr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 04:35 AM
So, here is what I've figured out - if 50 million voted for Bush, we had roughly the same for Gore (50 million.) Approximately 80 million are too young to vote, so -

80 million disenfranchised by age.
50 million voted for Bush.
50 million voted for Gore.
37 million not naturalized citizens yet.

There are 80 million 'other ancestries' not specified on the Census, which we can cancel out for those not enfranchised by age. (General Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, African-Americans "Blacks".)

For other non-Europeans, only 107,000 Israelis *reported*. A little over 2 million from the Middle East, a little over 2 million from Brazil and the West Indies. About 1.7 million from Subsaharan Africa (recent immigrants.)

There are about 58 million of descent from Great Britain altogether (reporting as Australian, American, Canadian, Celtic, British, English, Welsh, Scottish, and Scotch-Irish.)

30.5 million Irish, about 11 million of French civilization, 2 million general 'Europeans', 1.3 million Iberians, 17 million South Europeans, about 5 million from the Low Countries, about 46 million Germanics, 1.4 million Baltics, 10.3 million Scandinavians, and 16.5 million Slavs.

Assume that the non-Europeans, the Irish, and the Baltics are not citizens ... that leaves roughly the Germanics and the Low Country peoples with roughly the numbers of the Democrats and similar voters, and 50 million of the 'British' for the Republicans - that still means there are more than 67 million non-registered American citizens of European descent - still enough voters to dislodge both parties (possibly up to 78 million).

Evolved
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 05:52 AM
Every 4 years the government allows us to choose our method of suicide. This time it is a battle between the guy we know who is going to fuck us over and the guy we don't know but who will still fuck us over. Why bother even worrying about it? (:o

green nationalist
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 07:31 AM
Can you not vote for the National Alliance? Surely they have a man running?

JoeDas
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Oh, that's sad. That is less than the total number of people of German and English descent (about 18 to 19% together.) (Edited: Err, mistake 42.8 million reporting German descent, 8 million reporting French, 24.5 million reporting 'English'.)The Ancestry numbers reported by the Census are really strange. For example in 1990 they reported 58 million Germans, and then in 2000 they reported 43 million. Was there a famine? A mass exodus? No, everything was fine. So how can the German population have dropped by 15 million in 10 years? The answer, from what I can tell after looking into it a bit, is that the Census determines ancestry not by a simple "head count", but by what might be called "a lazy man's head count", a/k/a "Statistical sampling". Take a look at what the Census bureau statisticians had to say about this method of determining population:

The statisticians and demographers at the Census Bureau determined that statistical sampling, which involves estimates and guesswork vs. actual head counts, can be much less accurate than traditional methods, sometimes off by as much as 35%.
There are about 58 million of descent from Great Britain altogether (reporting as Australian, American, Canadian, Celtic, British, English, Welsh, Scottish, and Scotch-Irish.)Those who called themselves "American" clearly have roots in America going back before 1800. But in 1790, all the British groups put together (English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, Irish, Welsh) made up about 75% of the American population, so to be fair we can only use 75% of the 'American' number in the British count. Using the method I just outlined, there are 51 million people who claim British ancestry in America.

But anyway, who knows how accurate any of these numbers really are, because statistical sampling is used and because determing the ancestry of the American people is only a side-note of what the Census Bureau does.


I think the unanswered question would be: if the 'silent majority' could be mobilized to vote, which way would we swing? The sheer number of non-involved people *could* make a party strong enough to challenge the two parties. But, it would probably take some intense volunteering and money for advertising, organisation, etc. The silent majority would vote for Democrats if they voted based on their economic interests, but Republicans if they voted based on their social interests and opinions. As far as a third party, we all know that it is very hard to mount a successful third-party campaign for president, perhaps impossible at this point. A better strategy is state-wide and local elections. If third-parties started pulling in large numbers of votes in local and state elections, then things can change. Change starts from the bottom up, after all. But even that is very unlikely.


I really, really doubt that the great majority is 'fine' with how things are, or with either political choice they are offered. Getting them to realize the power they could wield would be the real obstacle.In 2000 there were 186 million voting-age, eligible citizens. 145 million were White, 22 million were Black, 13 million were Hispanic, 6 million were Asian.

In 2000, 110 million people voted. 89 million of them were White, 13 million were Black, 6 million Hispanic, and 2 million Asian .

So 56 million eligible Whites did not vote. If 75% of these White non-Voters had voted for a third-party candidate, and the third-party candidate had also drawn 10% of the support of already-voting Whites, that third party candidate would have solidly won the popular vote, although the Electoral College makes things a bit more tricky. In this scenario, 90% of eligible Whites would vote (89 million already voted, and if 3/4ths of non-voting Whites voted, or about 44 million, there would be 133 million Whites voting, out of 145 million eligible Whites. 133 / 145 x 100 = 91.7%). 90% of people voting may not seem realistic, but it isn't unheard of in America. During the Era of Good Feelings about 90% of people voted. So you're right: Theoretically it could be done, but it doesn't seem likely.

Data from 2000 election : http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf




Can you not vote for the National Alliance? Surely they have a man running?National Alliance is not a political party (I don't think), and they could not possibly get on the ballot anyway, since to get on the ballot a party needs thousands of signatures in each state. A group like the National Alliance would find it very hard to collect even 10,000 signatures in a state.

war
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 05:13 PM
If I could (if I was a American) I would not vote for Bush or Kerry. I would vote for a really white person, if this exist or wouldn't vote if it doesn't exist.

Racial regards
w.a.r.

Vestmannr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 05:28 PM
If I could (if I was a American) I would not vote for Bush or Kerry. I would vote for a really white person, if this exist or wouldn't vote if it doesn't exist..

Don't look at me: last time I voted, it was for Pat Buchanan... ;)

green nationalist
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 08:33 PM
very[/i] hard to collect even 10,000 signatures in a state.
Then there is no point in voting either democrat or republican, as they are one and the same. If the NA cant run in elections what is the point of their existence? Your goverment appears to be a single party goverment which gives the illusion of democracy, so therefore you live in a race treacherous, corrupt and decadent totaliterian regime, and Zionist to i might add. I would laugh but Im afraid the E.U. too is heading down the same road.

Maybe its time you went down to the ballot office and signed your support for the NA then adding i more vote to that 10,000 number you suggest supports them.

Vestmannr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 08:44 PM
Your goverment appears to be a single party goverment which gives the illusion of democracy, so therefore you live in a race treacherous, corrupt and decadent totaliterian regime, and Zionist to i might add.

It is a quite recent development, and most people are just beginning to figure it out. Others are propaganda addicts and like to scream about how different Bush is from Kerry, or Republican from Democrat, or Conservative from Liberal (and none of them are truly Conservatives or Liberals anymore.)


Maybe its time you went down to the ballot office and signed your support for the NA then adding i more vote to that 10,000 number you suggest supports them.

10,000 might win a county somewhere: if they all lived in the same county. The question I would have is : who is this National Alliance? I don't see them as who I would want representing me. Either way, one just can't go down to the ballot office and 'sign' support. It is illegal in many places to have write-in candidates or third party candidates now. Any third party that could break through the apathy and hopelessness to challenge the two-party monopoly would have to do so by maintaining the American tradition and symbols: I don't think the NA does that from what I see on their website.

anti-climacus
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 07:41 AM
Don't you see that the whole world hates America because of Bush? The most foolish thing we Americans could do is re-elect him. Unless of course we want to be a pariah state...
Voting for a jew is a bit more foolish than voting for Bush....... I am voting for Badnarik

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 10:35 PM
Voting for a jew is a bit more foolish than voting for Bush....... I am voting for Badnarik

Actually Kerry is only 1/2 Jewish on his paternal side and is technically Catholic.

I'd vote for Bush just because he cracks me up with his verbal slip ups. How he graduated from Yale and Havard God knows. :D

JoeDas
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 10:49 PM
Voting for a jew is a bit more foolish than voting for Bush....... I am voting for BadnarikKerry is not Jewish; he is Catholic (which is worse! :D :jk)
...

I can't think of a more foolish thing that we could do than re-elect this drunken, cocaine-using, draft-dodging, war-mongering fool who can't string a coherent sentence together without a telemprompter in front of him

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 11:02 PM
Kerry is not Jewish; he is Catholic (which is worse! :D :jk)
...

I can't think of a more foolish thing that we could do than re-elect this drunken, cocaine-using, draft-dodging, war-mongering fool who can't string a coherent sentence together without a telemprompter in front of him

Kerry is Catholic in name only. He fully supports gay marriage and is pro-choice.

JoeDas
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 11:03 PM
Aren't most Catholics pro-Choice?

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 11:17 PM
Aren't most Catholics pro-Choice?

You've got to be joking me. Your naïveté is astounding. Catholics don't even believe in the use of Contraception.

JoeDas
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 11:24 PM
You've got to be joking me. Your naïveté is astounding. Catholics don't even believe in the use of Contraception.The Vatican might not believe in the use of contraception, but normal Catholics don't form their opinions based on what the Pope says (I would hope anyway!).
I have seen opinion polls that state that most Catholics favor abortion being legal.



edit: A recent poll among Catholics reveals that most Catholics are indeed pro-Choice:
[the poll states] that 61 percent of respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed "it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion"

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040714-033856-2208r.htm

anti-climacus
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 04:28 AM
Kerry is not Jewish; he is Catholic (which is worse! :D :jk)
...

I can't think of a more foolish thing that we could do than re-elect this drunken, cocaine-using, draft-dodging, war-mongering fool who can't string a coherent sentence together without a telemprompter in front of him
Electing a Senator from New England with less integrity than the incumbent

Jack
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 09:41 AM
If I was in the US, I'd vote for Bush, methnks. Worse is better.

gorgeousgal2k2
Friday, September 17th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Why does everyone try to say John Kerry is Jewish? He isn't! He's CATHOLIC! :D Can't you tell the difference, or do you think all non-Protestant religions are the same?

Anyway, I don't know who I'd vote for - I don't like Bush, but I think Kerry is very weak and this is not what America needs at this time.

As for the British general election - In the next election i'll probably be able to vote depending on when it is, but i don't know who for - i havent decided.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 12:52 AM
Why does everyone try to say John Kerry is Jewish? He isn't! He's CATHOLIC! :D Can't you tell the difference, or do you think all non-Protestant religions are the same?

Anyway, I don't know who I'd vote for - I don't like Bush, but I think Kerry is very weak and this is not what America needs at this time.

As for the British general election - In the next election i'll probably be able to vote depending on when it is, but i don't know who for - i havent decided.

Because Kerry's Grandfather was a Hungarian Jew. By the name of Kahn. His father was the one who Anglicized the family name and made it Kerry.
So that makes him Half-Jewish. Though technically not a Jew because his mom isn't Jewish.

Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but I like the fact he doesn't take shitte from Mudslims. :D

So tell me are you going to vote for B-lair? :D He's a good English lap dog isn't he? In my book that more than compensates for him being a bad lier.

gorgeousgal2k2
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 10:59 PM
I don't like Blair - he's really screwed up the education system in this country, as well as the health service

AngryPotato
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 06:35 AM
It's like choosing between Pepsi and Coke. I wish I could choose Jolt, but no stores sell it, so I can't have it. If Bush put on a pretty pink dress and started doing the electric slide on the White House lawn I still wouldn't vote Kerry. Kerry would weaken our military, add more restrictions to gun ownership, promote gay marriage, promote abortion, bow down to the international community of skirt wearers, and increase my taxes. America is swirling down the shitter as is. I think I'd rather have a crazy Texan marching me into the unknown than a fruitcake loving jew.


http://home.comcast.net/~ereilly81/mrniceguy.jpg

Jack
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 01:43 PM
Worse is better.

The Australian elections are coming up, and I've been registered to vote :( so I'll put my ballot paper the way of the National Party, third largest (patriotic but not especially nationalist) party in Australia.

dazed&confused
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 07:02 PM
If you are christian, don't vote for Bush

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/af222/200410/JESUS.jpg

Aistulf
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 01:43 PM
Donald Duck for president! :D



http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=21943&stc=1

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 31st, 2018, 03:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc


Don't look at me: last time I voted, it was for Pat Buchanan... ;)In 2000, I was a poll reporter at a different precinct than the one I was supposed to vote at, so I inadvertently missed my opportunity to vote for Buchanan, the first choice I made when I was of legal age.


The Vatican might not believe in the use of contraception, but normal Catholics don't form their opinions based on what the Pope says (I would hope anyway!).
I have seen opinion polls that state that most Catholics favor abortion being legal.



edit: A recent poll among Catholics reveals that most Catholics are indeed pro-Choice:
[the poll states] that 61 percent of respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed "it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion"

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040714-033856-2208r.htmReallly...What about illegal Catholics? Even if German and Irish aren't hardcore Vatican assassins, the Italians, Mexicans and Filipinos are strictly ethnic Papists and do their best to impose their genetic weight onto the regions where they inhabit: New York, Los Angeles, Hawaii. Those areas are reliably Democratic at the ballot box.


Electing a Senator from New England with less integrity than the incumbentIt is quite sad that this sack of crap supposedly represents New England. Sure, his mother was a Forbes, but once she opened her legs, practised self-immolation. In 1996, I wanted Steve Forbes for POTUS.