Discussion:
How do gamers vote in elections?
(too old to reply)
Omphalos
2003-07-26 05:43:24 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?

Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]

Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Elf Kicker
2003-07-26 05:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
And look what you got. What a moron.
JPM III
2003-07-26 05:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elf Kicker
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
And look what you got. What a moron.
Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are likely
to respond.
Omphalos
2003-07-26 06:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by Elf Kicker
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
share.
And look what you got. What a moron.
Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are
likely to respond.
I know there are uneducated morons out there, but I want to get all
opinions. That's why I tried to get the general gamer population when I
chose the newsgroups to send the original post to.
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-07-26 11:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by JPM III
Post by Elf Kicker
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
share.
How do I respond? If your biggest concern was Lieberman's "crusade" against
Video games, then you need to pull your head out from between your legs and
get a fucking clue... no offense.
Post by Omphalos
Post by JPM III
Post by Elf Kicker
And look what you got. What a moron.
I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact that
you say that tells me all I need to know about you..
Post by Omphalos
Post by JPM III
Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are
likely to respond.
I know there are uneducated morons out there, but I want to get all
opinions. That's why I tried to get the general gamer population when I
chose the newsgroups to send the original post to.
So basically you wanted to get justification for your "so-called" informed
choice... sorry Mr. Howell, it ain't gonna happen... Read a book on
politics, or subscribe to a newpaper... A-hole!
Schrodinger
2003-07-27 08:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
Post by Elf Kicker
And look what you got. What a moron.
I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact
that
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
you say that tells me all I need to know about you..
My feelings exactly. Bush had better academic grades than the Robot and
people
think Bush is a moron while Gore is some kind of genius because he had a
book
ghostwritten. I'm sure Bush isn't the sharpest guy we had as president
but
neither is Gore.
Thank you, Doomster!
Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any*
democrat
Post by Les
and the decision is childsplay... This is what we are voting for in this
day and age- the lesser of two evils. Democrats like to brag that they
are
Post by Les
so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
simply more morally corrupted. I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...
Daniel Kolle
2003-07-27 22:13:27 UTC
Permalink
"Schrodinger"
Post by Schrodinger
Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...
Ummm... excuse me, I though he did.

--
-Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
JPM III
2003-07-28 02:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Schrodinger
Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...
The only way you believe he did not is if you are ignorant of the election
process. You see, the popular vote does not elect the President -- it elects
Electoral College "electors" from the 50 states who are supposedly pledged
to vote for that candidate that won the state.

What happened in Florida has nothing to do with the Constitution or the
Electoral College. It was a separate process entirely, and the United States
Supreme Court (which tends to be slant liberal by a roughly 5-4 count,
depending on the issue) decided in favor of Bush in a VERY detailed court
case.

Take the time to educate yourself. Read the opinion of the court in that
case. Whether we agree with it or not, the Supreme Court served its purpose
(interpreting the Constitutionality of certain electoral procedures in
Florida), and the court made the results legal. Bush is legitimately our
president.

You don't have to like that result, but obviously, if it weren't true, then
Gore would be President (and the 48% who voted for Bush would be as pissed
off as Gore-voters were -- so it's even).
Robert P Holley
2003-07-28 17:39:41 UTC
Permalink
"Schrodinger"
Post by Schrodinger
Post by Les
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
Post by Elf Kicker
And look what you got. What a moron.
I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact
that
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
you say that tells me all I need to know about you..
My feelings exactly. Bush had better academic grades than the Robot and
people
think Bush is a moron while Gore is some kind of genius because he had a
book
ghostwritten. I'm sure Bush isn't the sharpest guy we had as president
but
neither is Gore.
Thank you, Doomster!
Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any*
democrat
Post by Les
and the decision is childsplay... This is what we are voting for in this
day and age- the lesser of two evils. Democrats like to brag that they
are
Post by Les
so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
simply more morally corrupted. I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...
*hands Schrodinger a grape* Careful, they're sour.
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-07-27 10:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
Thank you, Doomster!
Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any*
democrat
Post by Les
and the decision is childsplay... This is what we are voting for in
this
Post by Les
day and age- the lesser of two evils. Democrats like to brag that they
are
Post by Les
so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
simply more morally corrupted. I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
uh, have you looked at the case against gray davis.
Yeah buddy, I have...
I think you can
make a fill in the blank here as whoever is governor would have taken
the hit.
That's because you're a liberal sycophant.
republican democrat, libertarian, or green. He is
goevernor during a serious economic downturn.
No, he's a Democrat Governer, who either couldn't see that we were headed
for an economic downturn or didn't care, and instead of taking measures to
weather the storm, increased Govt spending 30% while fostering no new
sources of revenue, then hid under a rock during the electricity crisis, and
finally locked Californians into 20 years of inflated electricity prices
during "backroom" deals that still haven't been accounted for, after that,
during his re-election campaign, he understated the state's defecit by 10
BILLION dollars. Liberals are more interested in towing the party line than
doing what's best for California... and the Country. Typical!
It's not like he broke the law.
HEY!, the new Democratic re-election campaign slogan!!!!


I think the president during the great wall street crash v
1.0 was booted as well.
uh, which President was that???
Paul Cassel
2003-07-27 10:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
uh, which President was that???
Hoover. Then Roosevelt, after failing to restart the economy over the next 9
or so years, got us into WWII to try that as an economic stimulus.

Well, it was a lot better than vile clinton bombing everything from aspirin
factories to whatnot just to disrupt the focus from what he was doing.

-paul
Darrell Mayeda
2003-07-27 23:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Cassel
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
uh, which President was that???
Hoover. Then Roosevelt, after failing to restart the economy over the next 9
or so years, got us into WWII to try that as an economic stimulus.
Roosevelt didn't get us into WWII "to try that as an economic stimulis,"
numbnuts. He was SITTING THE WAR OUT until Pearl Harbor was bombed in
1941.
stePH
the chain of events there if you believe the movie "tora, tora, tora"
was pretty dumb almost as bad as 9/11. some say the big brass KNEW
the attack was comming but kept it quiet. I see Pearl harbor on a
regular basis. I would hate to think that that many people were
killed/injured and my grandparents put through so much grief just to
give the national economy a goose.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darrell Mayeda
***@hawaii.rr.com

Knight of the ERmoron Round Table.


NOTE: I'm tired of all the spam in my mailbox please leave my
last name in the body of your reply. Thanks
The Doomster
2003-07-27 11:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any* democrat
and the decision is childsplay... This is what we are voting for in this
day and age- the lesser of two evils. Democrats like to brag that they are
so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
simply more morally corrupted. I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
uh, have you looked at the case against gray davis. I think you can
make a fill in the blank here as whoever is governor would have taken
the hit. republican democrat, libertarian, or green. He is
goevernor during a serious economic downturn. It's not like he broke
the law.
He came pretty damn close. Davis is facing recall because of a myriad of
factors, what the SF Chronicle labels the confluence of events like the perfect
storm: an atmosphere of sleaze brought on by his aggresive fundraising (he even
hit up Democratic college students!), making people think he's more concerned
about his donors than the constituents; his pandering to special interests, which
alienated many grassroots Democrats; his absolutely incomprehensible act of
alienating members of his *own* party (he told Demos in the legislature that it's
his way or the highway); the energy crisis that Davis at first ignored then tried
to spin out of, even though it wasn't really his fault; and the budget problem,
which was exacerbated by him by increasing spending like there was no tomorrow,
then when the recession wiped out the tax revenues, ignoring it at first, then
putting off the problem during the election year, causing more problems. He
promised to make structural changes to the state tax system to prevent problems
from occuring in the new budget but it was all talk.

So you have a governor who:
- the people blame for the power problem (unfairly);
- the people view as being corrupt and beholden to special interest;
- the people view as indecisive or unwilling to make tough choices;
- the Democrats in the legislature (and in other state elected positions) do not
like very much since he arrogantly tried to carry out his agenda w/o much
cooperation from them;
- the same Demos are not afraid to ignore or challenge. The Senate leader, the
Controller, and even the Lt. Gov, (all Demos) have opposed him for their various
agendas.
- never had a core constituency since his election strategy in both elections was
to paint his opponents less desireable than himself.
- the voters never really felt energized about.

In all, you got a governor who will probably be recalled.

Having said that, I for one will vote against the recall. I am a Republican who
has utter contempt for Davis and have never voted for him. However, this recall
goes against the principles of republicanism; we vote for the politicians who
represent us. A plurality of voters voted for Davis, most of them probably
ignorant or uncaring about his lack of honesty, lack of will to tackle tough
problems, and his political incompetency. Well, they made their bed, they should
have to lie in it. Besides, why would anyone want to be governor of CA right
now? It's like taking the head coaching job for the NFL's Bengals after they
traded away all their marquee players.
I think the president during the great wall street crash v
1.0 was booted as well.
Hoover lost to Roosevelt 3 yrs after the 1929 Crash, mainly because he was
perceived as uncaring, much like what brought Bush pere down. He was inflexible
w/ his thinking to do some of the radical things Roosevelt did; however,
Roosevelt's plans didn't bring the US out of the doldrums until WW2 started and
the US govt. injected trillions of dollars into the (war) economy.

Doomster
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: ***@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
***@netgate.net
Robert P Holley
2003-07-28 17:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Okay some of that I didn't know about or realize. I think MY
GOVERNOR and state legislature needs to take a look at the mess in
california as what to avoid because we are just starting that mess
now. the question is what to do about it. government spending on
construction projects is one way to spike the economy because those
construction jobs will need workers.
Just because a government program increases jobs doesn't necessarily
justify
spending govt. money. Is the program needed, for say, to alleviate
traffic
congestion, to implement mass transit, etc.? Unfortunately, a lot of
programs
are decided not based on merit but because Senator A from Texas is the
Committee
Chairman and has the political pull to decide to spend on a project in his
state
while Senator B's state of CA needs the construction dollars more.
Companies don't just run a business to keep people employed. They need to
make
money. The govt. should not just create "make work" projects solely to
boost
jobs. There should be a good reason for spending on the project.
those workers will earn money
they otherwise wouldn't have and spend it. the question is what end
do you start from. do you start at the top with the board of
directors and company presidents and hope they use the money in the
US to buy goods and services or do you start with the guy at the
bottom that might earn minimum wage and give him more money to spend.
I'd do both. The people at the bottom will spend it because they need it.
The
people at the top will usually invest it, helping the economy because
their
savings will be a source of investments that other companies will use to
expand. Reform the tax system so that we have a flat tax of 20% (for
everyone)
for income above $45K for a family of 4. No deductions 'cept for
dependents.
This will give tax breaks for everyone, the rich and the poor. But the
government revenues will shrink, which will require slashing govt.
spending.
Cutting taxes reduces revenue and would put you in more of a hole
than you started in unless the extra money provided a big spike in
spending to increase tax revenues that way.
Not necessarily. Lowering taxes, if they boost the economy, will increase
tax
revenues. You get more if get a smaller percentage of a large pie than a
big
percentage of a small pie. Reagan's tax cuts of the early 80s didn't
decrease
revenues - the economy heated up and the govt. revenues increased. Of
course,
the GOP and Demos didn't do much to rein in spending and the deficits got
larger.
From what we've seen of
giving money to the guys at the top.
You're right - the tax cuts go to the people at the top. But that's
because the
people at the top pay most of the taxes. If you want a sizeable tax cut
(that
is, give taxpayers a large chunk of their taxes back in their pockets),
the tax
cut will often benefit the rich the most. Why? Because they pay most of
the
Fed. & state income taxes. Because of our progressive tax system, the
ones at
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html
The top 25% of income earners paid 84% of all Fed. income taxes. The
bottom 50%
of income earners paid only 5% of all income taxes. The "rich" pay most
of the
income taxes. Therefore, any sizeable tax cut will benefit the rich since
they
have the biggest burden. The poor won't benefit from a tax cut because
*they
pay little, if at all, taxes*. That's why the Demos want to continue the
Earned
Income Tax Credit, which is like demanding the manufacturer's rebate on a
truck
w/o buying the truck.
I agree with everything you said except for one thing. The EIC was created
by Reagan (I believe) in an attempt to reward low income workers from
staying off of welfare.
JPM III
2003-07-28 01:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact that
you say that tells me all I need to know about you..
I need to point out that Omphalos did not call him a moron. Elf Kicker did.
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-07-29 20:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
I need to point out that Omphalos did not call him a moron. Elf Kicker
did.
err, what did Omphalos call him?
Umm, he didn't call him anything.
Then that makes this exchange very awkward, doesn't it?
slapkicksy
2003-07-29 20:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
Post by JPM III
I need to point out that Omphalos did not call him a moron. Elf Kicker
did.
err, what did Omphalos call him?
Umm, he didn't call him anything.
Then that makes this exchange very awkward, doesn't it?
only for the people involved. For me, it's just funny.
nightwriter
2003-07-26 15:00:51 UTC
Permalink
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not news to
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.

never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory doesn't
work.
Post by Omphalos
Post by JPM III
Post by Elf Kicker
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
share.
And look what you got. What a moron.
Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are
likely to respond.
I know there are uneducated morons out there, but I want to get all
opinions. That's why I tried to get the general gamer population when I
chose the newsgroups to send the original post to.
Briarroot
2003-07-26 17:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightwriter
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not news to
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.
never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory doesn't
work.
i have an economics degree
Translation: Do you want fries with that?
Jason Costa
2003-07-26 19:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightwriter
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not news to
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.
never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory doesn't
work.
What you say may be true to a point, but I've found that truly
intelligent people (like myself :) have figured out that all
politicians are a bunch of slimeballs whether they call themselves
Republicans, conservative, liberal, Democratic, etc. They're all cut
from the same cloth, just opposite ends.
nightwriter
2003-07-26 21:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Costa
Post by nightwriter
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not news to
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.
never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory doesn't
work.
What you say may be true to a point, but I've found that truly
intelligent people (like myself :) have figured out that all
politicians are a bunch of slimeballs whether they call themselves
Republicans, conservative, liberal, Democratic, etc. They're all cut
from the same cloth, just opposite ends.
this is true. the majority of people who aspire towards that type of power
are not the kind of people you want at your house, unless you're also a
power-sucker. but in politics, it's usually a case of picking the lesser
evil, and as far as republicans go, old saddam himself would probably have
been one had he lived here.
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-07-27 08:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightwriter
Post by Jason Costa
Post by nightwriter
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not
news
Post by nightwriter
to
Post by Jason Costa
Post by nightwriter
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely
you
Post by nightwriter
are
Post by Jason Costa
Post by nightwriter
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you
are to
Post by Jason Costa
Post by nightwriter
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.
never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory
doesn't
Post by Jason Costa
Post by nightwriter
work.
What you say may be true to a point, but I've found that truly
intelligent people (like myself :) have figured out that all
politicians are a bunch of slimeballs whether they call themselves
Republicans, conservative, liberal, Democratic, etc. They're all cut
from the same cloth, just opposite ends.
this is true. the majority of people who aspire towards that type of power
are not the kind of people you want at your house, unless you're also a
power-sucker. but in politics, it's usually a case of picking the lesser
evil, and as far as republicans go, old saddam himself would probably have
been one had he lived here.
Gee, and I thought birds of a feather, flock together... and who has made
the biggest stink about the "illegality" of this war???? THAT'S WHAT I
THOUGHT!!!!!! Get a clue- You and your ilk are on the wrong side of this
war, buddy boy...
The Doomster
2003-07-27 11:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightwriter
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not news to
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.
Then explain how so many liberals fell for Bill Clinton's BS.

Just because you're educated doesn't necessarily mean you have more common
sense. In fact, the more 'educated' Democrats sometimes display an egregious
lack of common sense, which alienate me from their candidates and policies.
Post by nightwriter
never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory doesn't
work.
Your economics degree should also tell you that taxes have a deleterious affect
on the economy, yet the one constant of the Democratic Party is to raise taxes.

Doomster
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: ***@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
***@netgate.net
ObiWanJoJo
2003-07-28 23:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doomster
Post by nightwriter
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not news to
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.
Then explain how so many liberals fell for Bill Clinton's BS.
Just because you're educated doesn't necessarily mean you have more common
sense. In fact, the more 'educated' Democrats sometimes display an egregious
lack of common sense, which alienate me from their candidates and policies.
Post by nightwriter
never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory doesn't
work.
Your economics degree should also tell you that taxes have a deleterious affect
on the economy, yet the one constant of the Democratic Party is to raise taxes.
And yet this country has the lowest tax rate(pre tax cut) of any civilized
nation.
Post by The Doomster
Doomster
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.
your email will bounce.
The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.
Doomster
--
Robert P Holley
2003-07-28 17:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightwriter
generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch. that's not news to
anyone. the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.
never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled. i have an economics degree. trickle down theory doesn't
work.
BWAHAHAHA! Now you are one funny guy my friend. No, seriously...you're
down right funny. Great, great stuff. My favorite was the "liberals are
more educated" bit.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-26 07:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than
the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
in office than Bush.
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-07-26 11:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than
the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
Democrats?
I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
Post by jojoMSfanboy
in office than Bush.
If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve EXACTLY what
you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a dumbass....
Buckwheat
2003-07-26 16:13:01 UTC
Permalink
He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now. When I
see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just picture Bush
sitting there at the frat house in college being told that line "fat,drunk and
stupid is a terrible way to go through life son".
Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the weight and
stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
Al Sharpton is more and more credible every day. Did you notice he's lost the
mullet? Last night he was on with Chris Mathews (sp?) and I found him to be
remarkably articulate, intellegent and credible. I'd rather have Sharpton than
Bush, too.
Briarroot
2003-07-26 17:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckwheat
Al Sharpton is more and more credible every day. Did you notice he's lost the
mullet? Last night he was on with Chris Mathews (sp?) and I found him to be
remarkably articulate, intellegent and credible. I'd rather have Sharpton than
Bush, too.
I bet Sharpton would find your name offensive.
Not that I care all that much! ;-)
Buckwheat
2003-07-26 17:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Briarroot
I bet Sharpton would find your name offensive.
Not that I care all that much! ;-)
I got my nic legitimately: http://www.fadetoblack.com/namegenerator/
Client Retention @ Home
2003-07-26 22:35:20 UTC
Permalink
He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now. When
I
see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.
When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
ObiWanJoJo
2003-07-28 15:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Client Retention @ Home
He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now. When
I
see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.
When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
I think of that movie "Black Caesar"
Brian
2003-07-28 15:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Pro-Family and Pro-Limited Government.
Post by ObiWanJoJo
Post by Client Retention @ Home
He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now. When
I
see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.
When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
I think of that movie "Black Caesar"
JPM III
2003-07-28 19:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Client Retention @ Home
When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
I detest Sharpton's politics, but at least he's honest about what he
believes in. He's about the only candidate who will give it to you straight
without politicizing. Unfortunately, that doesn't make him the best man for
the job. Being a socialist kinda rules him out.
Jim Kennedy
2003-07-26 12:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
these censorship ideas.
Not counting Gore's wife of course.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-26 14:39:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@spam.apk.net
says...
Post by Jim Kennedy
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
these censorship ideas.
Not counting Gore's wife of course.
Don't recall her running for office?
Phil-on-a-hill
2003-07-27 07:33:26 UTC
Permalink
No one gives a flying fuck about any of your shitty politics.
Gene Poole
2003-07-26 15:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than
the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
in office than Bush.
not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
right?

right??

Liebermann isn't the only one with censorship ideas.
--
Gene Poole

Do it. Do it now, kids. Stick it to the man.
Client Retention @ Home
2003-07-26 22:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Poole
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than
the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
in office than Bush.
not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
right?
right??
I think Tipper should be @$$ phucked. Talk about your white trash.
The Doomster
2003-07-27 12:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than
the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
in office than Bush.
You're right that Omphalos might have a false premise (that gamers voted against
Gore because of the censorship issue of Lieberman). But didn't Tipper start PMRC?

Yup, conservatives/Republicans do censor, way too much for my taste, but so do
liberals/Democrats. Ever witness what goes on on college campuses like Berkeley
where liberals actually stole the student newspaper because they didn't like what
was written in an editorial? Or the Hollywood studios who changed movies like
"Sum of All Fears" because of political correctness? Or media companies like CNN
who routinely keep out reports that make liberals look bad (check out BIAS by
Bernard Goldberg), reports like how Clinton ran ads during the 1996 campaign on
Christian radio stations touting his defense of marriage (he signed the DOMA) all
the while claiming to gay voters that he really cared about them? No media
coverage 'cept for the alt. sources like Drudge. And there are other blatant
examples of media self-censorship.

The reason why so many actors/artists are Democrats are because they are out of
touch w/ the real world. It's great to dream up of a socialistic utopia where
"peace, love, and understanding" are the working principles but it doesn't work
like that in the real world. If artists really cared about "freedom", they'd vote
Libertarian, but they won't since Libertarians also espouse "economic freedoms",
something anathemic to most liberals.

Neither political party or side can claim that they care more about our civil
liberties than the other (except for maybe the Libertarians). Anyone who thinks
otherwise is ignorant.

Doomster
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: ***@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
***@netgate.net
JPM III
2003-07-28 19:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Whats up Omphalos? No retort for this line? He just called you ignorant.
-"Remember, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
open your mouth and remove all doubt."
"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from delivering
wordy evidence of the fact." -- Mark Twain

When someone resorts to insult, it is better to leave the deteriorated
argument for a better, more intelligent one. Omphalos did the right thing.
I, on the other hand, joined in at the wrong time. :-)
Gene Poole
2003-07-28 19:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Whats up Omphalos? No retort for this line? He just called you ignorant.
-"Remember, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
open your mouth and remove all doubt."
"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from delivering
wordy evidence of the fact." -- Mark Twain
When someone resorts to insult, it is better to leave the deteriorated
argument for a better, more intelligent one. Omphalos did the right thing.
I, on the other hand, joined in at the wrong time. :-)
hmm.

Omphalos did the right thing this time, but for the wrong reasons. this
is because it is plain that he isn't opposed to flinging mud, as is
evidenced elsewhere. refraining from insults seems to therefore be
merely accident.
--
Gene Poole

This post would make a lot more sense if I were drunk.
Dingleberry
2003-07-28 21:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doomster
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have
the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
You're right that Omphalos might have a false premise (that gamers voted
against Gore because of the censorship issue of Lieberman). But didn't
Tipper start PMRC?
Yup, conservatives/Republicans do censor, way too much for my taste, but
so do liberals/Democrats. Ever witness what goes on on college campuses
like Berkeley where liberals actually stole the student newspaper
because they didn't like what was written in an editorial? Or the
Hollywood studios who changed movies like "Sum of All Fears" because of
political correctness? Or media companies like CNN who routinely keep
out reports that make liberals look bad (check out BIAS by Bernard
Goldberg), reports like how Clinton ran ads during the 1996 campaign on
Christian radio stations touting his defense of marriage (he signed the
DOMA) all the while claiming to gay voters that he really cared about
them? No media coverage 'cept for the alt. sources like Drudge. And
there are other blatant examples of media self-censorship.
You have a good point but technically, that isn't censorship because only
a government can censor.
Post by The Doomster
The reason why so many actors/artists are Democrats are because they are
out of touch w/ the real world. It's great to dream up of a socialistic
utopia where "peace, love, and understanding" are the working principles
but it doesn't work like that in the real world. If artists really
cared about "freedom", they'd vote Libertarian, but they won't since
Libertarians also espouse "economic freedoms", something anathemic to
most liberals.
I especially enjoy celebrities talk about how taxes should be raised to
hand out to the poor and non-working. Most real Americans don't get
millions of dollars a year for pretending to be someone your not (acting).
Post by The Doomster
Neither political party or side can claim that they care more about our
civil liberties than the other (except for maybe the Libertarians).
Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant.
Whats up Omphalos? No retort for this line? He just called you ignorant.
Oh no! He didn't respond to a personal attack! He's lost all
credibility because of it!
Phil-on-a-hill
2003-07-26 07:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Go away with your OT crap.
Les
2003-07-26 09:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
None of the above

Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.
Gourd
2003-07-26 10:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
None of the above
Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.
Okay then... by your response I guess that you are one of the many people
who lives in a country where you DON'T VOTE AT ALL?

Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in your
country you voted for or wanted to vote for. If you do, in fact, live in a
country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
feel free to mention that.

Personally, I voted for Gore/Lieberman because though videogames are
important to me, there were a number of other areas where I agreed with
thier policies.
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-07-26 11:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gourd
Post by Les
None of the above
Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.
Okay then... by your response I guess that you are one of the many people
who lives in a country where you DON'T VOTE AT ALL?
Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in your
country you voted for or wanted to vote for. If you do, in fact, live in a
country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
feel free to mention that.
Personally, I voted for Gore/Lieberman because though videogames are
important to me, there were a number of other areas where I agreed with
thier policies.
Well Gourd, While I COMPLETELY disagree with your choice in candidates, I
commend the fact that you stand up for your choice and "stand by it" Both
Dems and Rep's could learn from your example.... However, I'm going to have
to throw in this one partisan dig- *right now* ALL Dems are cowardly poll
watchers, and that ain't good for Dems
Nightwing
2003-07-26 12:03:01 UTC
Permalink
I voted Gore.

If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse. As was
said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been trying to
ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
President combined.

I really hope that next year you vote Democrat, I am a liberal Republican
and I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
Post by Gourd
Post by Les
None of the above
Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.
Okay then... by your response I guess that you are one of the many people
who lives in a country where you DON'T VOTE AT ALL?
Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in your
country you voted for or wanted to vote for. If you do, in fact, live in a
country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
feel free to mention that.
Personally, I voted for Gore/Lieberman because though videogames are
important to me, there were a number of other areas where I agreed with
thier policies.
Buckaroo Banzai
2003-07-26 12:42:33 UTC
Permalink
We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
Post by Nightwing
President combined.
I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
Damocles
2003-07-26 14:35:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:42:33 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
Post by Nightwing
We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
Post by Nightwing
President combined.
I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
It only took 10 messages for the insults to start. I wouldn't have
bothered posting in this thread if I'd noticed it was crossposted to
all those alt.* groups.
Omphalos
2003-07-26 14:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damocles
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:42:33 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
Post by Nightwing
We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
Post by Nightwing
President combined.
I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
It only took 10 messages for the insults to start. I wouldn't have
bothered posting in this thread if I'd noticed it was crossposted to
all those alt.* groups.
There's no differece between an alt.* group and any other hierarchy. Alt.*
groups are just easier to create.
nightwriter
2003-07-26 15:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightwing
We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
Post by Nightwing
President combined.
I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't have
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of the press is
dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most powerful kind, because
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.

second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain this,
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say anymore
without being knocked down for it.
Gerry Quinn
2003-07-26 15:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightwriter
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't have
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of the press is
dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most powerful kind, because
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
Typical left-wing crap. If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
something else. There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper
incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy
foreign papers easily. Or indeed, check the internet.

So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out. And
they "omit" things to fool you. How the hell did you find out about
these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?
All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that you
would prefer.
Post by nightwriter
second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain this,
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say anymore
without being knocked down for it.
This on a thread where somebody was immediately howled at for being a
"moron" when he dared to say he voted for Bush.

- Gerry Quinn
nightwriter
2003-07-26 16:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Quinn
Post by nightwriter
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't have
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of the press is
dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most powerful kind, because
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
Typical left-wing crap. If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
something else. There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper
incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy
foreign papers easily. Or indeed, check the internet.
CNN is considered 'the press' although it doesn't actually 'press' anything.
i have no problem with 'a slant', i have a problem with the government using
a newstation as its own pulpit. having a slant is not the same as being
co-opted. i suggest you read 'noam chomsky's manufacturing consent'. all
big business media have become corporations in the business of business, not
the business of factual news. our media is co-opted by the pressure to meet
the bottom line. if i might point out: how many big news agencies did
stories on jessica what's-her-name that the marines 'rescued' from the
hospital, who now has amnesia and will 'probably never remember exactly what
happened'? well, the government needed a hero, an icon, a lightning rod -
jessica was it. she was never bitch-slapped around by the doctors, and in
fact they performed surgeries on her that american doctors said were
incredible and precise. she made friends with the nurses in the hospital.
when the husband of one of the nurses tried to return her to a marine
outpost, they shot at the car so they went back to the hospital. she was
never being held against her will. this story was all over the news in
other parts of the world (yes, i do get my news from multiple sources, thank
you), but not here. why not? you still trust your media?
Post by Gerry Quinn
So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out. And
they "omit" things to fool you. How the hell did you find out about
these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?
All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that you
would prefer.
Post by nightwriter
second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain this,
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say anymore
without being knocked down for it.
This on a thread where somebody was immediately howled at for being a
"moron" when he dared to say he voted for Bush.
doesn't take away from the fact that freedom of speech is still supressed by
the government, covertly, subtly. if this isn't apparant, i suggest you
return to university. i'm no conspiracy theorist, but when the government
tells people to 'be very careful about what they say' about the president,
i'm concerned.
Post by Gerry Quinn
- Gerry Quinn
Blinty
2003-07-26 21:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
says...
Post by jojoMSfanboy
In article
Post by nightwriter
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't
have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of
the press is dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most
powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see
the errors of omission.
Typical left-wing crap. If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
something else. There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper
incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy
foreign papers easily. Or indeed, check the internet.
So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out. And
they "omit" things to fool you. How the hell did you find out about
these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?
All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that
you would prefer.
Post by nightwriter
second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain
this, it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to
say anymore without being knocked down for it.
This on a thread where somebody was immediately howled at for being a
"moron" when he dared to say he voted for Bush.
The truth hurts!
Clinton is a moron.
Briarroot
2003-07-26 17:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightwriter
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't have
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of the press is
dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most powerful kind, because
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
LOL what planet are you from? You certainly haven't been watching
the news lately!
Post by nightwriter
second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain this,
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say anymore
without being knocked down for it.
LOL Where are you from?
nightwriter
2003-07-27 01:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by nightwriter
Post by Nightwing
We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
Post by Nightwing
President combined.
I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't
have
Post by nightwriter
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of the
press
Post by Omphalos
is
Post by nightwriter
dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most powerful kind,
because
Post by nightwriter
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain this,
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
anymore
Post by nightwriter
without being knocked down for it.
So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts. And BTW,
I
Post by Omphalos
watched the war on FOX.
as i'm not defending my thesis here, i don't see the need for facts, i see
the need for ideas, thought, expression, possibility: chiefly, everything
the bush administration is against.
nightwriter
2003-07-27 14:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
Post by Omphalos
Post by nightwriter
Post by Nightwing
We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
Post by Nightwing
President combined.
I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing
wacko.
Post by Omphalos
Post by nightwriter
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't
have
Post by nightwriter
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of the
press
Post by Omphalos
is
Post by nightwriter
dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most powerful kind,
because
Post by nightwriter
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain
this,
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
Post by Omphalos
Post by nightwriter
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
anymore
Post by nightwriter
without being knocked down for it.
So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts. And
BTW,
Post by Buckaroo Banzai
I
Post by Omphalos
watched the war on FOX.
as i'm not defending my thesis here, i don't see the need for facts, i see
the need for ideas, thought, expression, possibility: chiefly, everything
the bush administration is against.
And I'm for daffodils, and skipping tra-la-la-la-la through fields of
those
very same daffodils...
ditto. wanna hold hands?
I love the fact that you liberals pride yourselves on your intelligence,
and
that intelligence may very well be true, but it's an immoral and crafty
intelligence....
one might argue that any intelligence is immoral. it depends what side of
the missing link you're on ;)
you scheme and plot and that's where your strength lies...
Again, I'm not going to defend the Bush administration, I'm simply going
to
state the truth- *anything* else would be extremely detrimental to our
country.l
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-27 10:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by nightwriter
Post by Nightwing
We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
Post by Nightwing
President combined.
I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
well.... freedom of the press. that's a good place to start. i don't
have
Post by nightwriter
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN. freedom of the press
is
Post by nightwriter
dead. that's called censorship. and it is the most powerful kind,
because
Post by nightwriter
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
second - freedom of speech. i should hope i don't need to explain this,
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
anymore
Post by nightwriter
without being knocked down for it.
So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts. And BTW, I
watched the war on FOX.
The only channel any self respecting war monger would watch. Next you will
start ranting and raving about ratings. I guess if liberals only had once
choice of tv it would have incredible ratings too.
Damocles
2003-07-27 17:37:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:41:18 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
Post by Omphalos
So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts. And BTW, I
watched the war on FOX.
This war brought to you by Pepsi, the choice of a new Generation! Now
returning to Fox's live coverage of GULF WAR II: THIS TIME IT'S
PERSONAL.
Omphalos
2003-07-26 14:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightwing
If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse. As
was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been trying
to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush than any
other President combined.
Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-26 14:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by Nightwing
If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse. As
was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been trying
to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush than any
other President combined.
Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The Whitehouse
censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's involvement. Some
members of Congress have said that it will make many Americans angry to read
it so the Whitehouse made it classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to
read the whole report and make up my own mind.
Buckwheat
2003-07-26 16:08:30 UTC
Permalink
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is doing
better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power from the
states and expanding the size of the federal government. Bush can't even lie as
well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's. Pinhead.)

Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-26 16:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is doing
better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power from the
states and expanding the size of the federal government. Bush can't even lie as
well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't resist
this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped. LOL!!! Maybe if he
was getting a little something on the side we would not be in this mess in
Iraq.
Buckwheat
2003-07-26 16:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't resist
this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped. LOL!!! Maybe if he
was getting a little something on the side we would not be in this mess in
Iraq.
Perhaps he's just a bit more descrete? Or perhaps no interns will go down on
him? I'd believe either theory.
Omphalos
2003-07-26 21:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about
WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
not be in this mess in Iraq.
Clinton didn't do jack shit in office except get a blowjob from an
intern.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-27 08:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about
WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
not be in this mess in Iraq.
Clinton didn't do jack shit in office except get a blowjob from an
intern.
I wonder why things were going so smooth than. Nothing like a good old boy
from Arkansas to get things smoothed out.
Robert P Holley
2003-07-28 19:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is doing
better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power from the
states and expanding the size of the federal government. Bush can't even
lie
as
Post by Buckwheat
well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I love Clinton
First Sharpton and now this? I hate to say this, but Skye was right. You
truly are a moron.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-27 08:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power
from the states and expanding the size of the federal government. Bush
can't even lie as well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's.
Pinhead.)
Clinton said Iraq had WMD. Nancy Pelosi said Iraq had WMD. Germany,
France, and the UN said that Iraq had WMD. Were they all lying too? Before
the war, there was never a question about whether Iraq had WMD. It was
just that no one had the balls to do anything about it except Bush and
Blair.
They will find WMD in Iraq. And when they do, then you can cry.
So why are we not invading Iran, North Korea and all the other nations with
WMD and terrible leaders?
Steven Hurdle
2003-07-27 02:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gourd
Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in your
country you voted for or wanted to vote for. If you do, in fact, live in a
country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
feel free to mention that.
Perhaps he didn't feel inclined to because the original question, as
posed, discouraged it. Here it is again:

"I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?"

The question was clearly U.S. centric in context, IMO. Also, many
(most?) countries don't have prominent politicians attacking gaming as
Liebermann has done in the U.S. (Greece and Thailand are the only other
examples that I'm aware of).

However, if anyone's truly curious about my vote, the candidate I
selected when voting in the last federal election was Keith Martin of the
Canadian Alliance, someone who I don't expect would ever advocate
restrictions on video games. :)
nightwriter
2003-07-26 15:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
LOL
John Ashcroft
2003-07-26 15:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Nader. :)
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-26 16:18:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-***@comcast.com>, ***@iswatching.you
says...
Post by John Ashcroft
Nader. :)
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Hey go protect some border or something. LOL!!!! Did not realize we had some
of the administration in here.
Bousch
2003-07-26 18:35:05 UTC
Permalink
I voted for Bush. Algore is an android.
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-26 19:27:04 UTC
Permalink
I thought that was Al Gore I saw in KOTOR. He was holding the chit force card.
Post by Bousch
I voted for Bush. Algore is an android.
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Daniel Kolle
2003-07-26 21:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
I would have voted Bush.

--
-Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Butt Plug
2003-07-26 22:31:42 UTC
Permalink
On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
Post by Daniel Kolle
I would have voted Bush.
Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
--
The Immoralist
Omphalos
2003-07-27 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Butt Plug
On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
Post by Daniel Kolle
I would have voted Bush.
Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.
Daniel Kolle
2003-07-27 02:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by Butt Plug
On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
Post by Daniel Kolle
I would have voted Bush.
Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.
Ouch.

--
-Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-27 10:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by Butt Plug
On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
Post by Daniel Kolle
I would have voted Bush.
Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.
Damn proud to have him.
Omphalos
2003-07-28 13:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Omphalos
Post by Butt Plug
On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel
Post by Daniel Kolle
I would have voted Bush.
Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.
Damn proud to have him.
So you support a racist?
You bet! If thats what you want to call him thats your business.
And you Democrats still don't understand why you lost big time in 2002.
Client Retention @ Home
2003-07-26 22:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
I don't vote.
Blinty
2003-07-27 01:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
I don't vote.
Foolish.
Client Retention @ Home
2003-07-27 17:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
I don't vote.
Foolish.
The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
Gene Poole
2003-07-28 18:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
I
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
I'd
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote
in
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
all?
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
against
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
I don't vote.
Foolish.
The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
your mom far outweighs a manatee.
Pfff, you're mom fucked a manatee. :-P
that wasn't that great, mang. mine was better.
--
Gene Poole

(And dealing in death is the nature of the beast...)
Gene Poole
2003-07-29 05:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
spam
Post by Gene Poole
Post by Omphalos
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost,
and if
Post by Gene Poole
Post by Omphalos
I
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
great.
Post by Gene Poole
Post by Omphalos
I'd
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
vote
Post by Gene Poole
Post by Omphalos
in
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
all?
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
against
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Omphalos
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
share.
Post by Gene Poole
Post by Omphalos
Post by Client Retention @ Home
Post by Blinty
Post by Client Retention @ Home
I don't vote.
Foolish.
The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
your mom far outweighs a manatee.
Pfff, you're mom fucked a manatee. :-P
that wasn't that great, mang. mine was better.
Yeah, but I had to say _something_.
I find there is a useful retort to virtually anything handy.

it's a variation of

snuh?
buh?
wuh?
etc-uh?
--
Gene Poole

All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
Omphalos
2003-07-27 01:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about
WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
not be in this mess in Iraq.
I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
TheAlternativeMind®
2003-07-27 07:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about
WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
not be in this mess in Iraq.
I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
and as a result we got 9/11.
--
TheAlternativeMind®
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-27 10:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheAlternativeMind®
Post by Omphalos
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about
WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
not be in this mess in Iraq.
I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
and as a result we got 9/11.
--
TheAlternativeMind®
So by your thinking Bush's daddy was responsible for the first attack on the
World Trade Center? Wake the hell up and think on your own.
Buckwheat
2003-07-27 14:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheAlternativeMind®
Post by Omphalos
I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
and as a result we got 9/11.
With analytical skills like yours you probably could get a job today with the
CIA.
Gene Poole
2003-07-27 19:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buckwheat
Post by TheAlternativeMind®
Post by Omphalos
I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
and as a result we got 9/11.
With analytical skills like yours you probably could get a job today with the
CIA.
with a dry cool with like that you could be a super hero!
--
Gene Poole

You've got to take life serially.
jojoMSfanboy
2003-07-27 10:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Post by jojoMSfanboy
Post by Buckwheat
<snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
I'm a registered Republican. There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton. (Yea, right, it's all about
WMD's. Pinhead.)
Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
not be in this mess in Iraq.
I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
You talking Bush or Clinton? Both are guilty of these things. Sorry try again.
The Doomster
2003-07-27 11:54:27 UTC
Permalink
You know, reading all these posts off this thread, not very many people actually
replied to your survey. Why don't you address this in some online polling site?

And wouldn't the poll be somewhat predictable? An overwhelming number of gamers
are men. Since blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented among PC owners, it
stands to reason that whites and Asians will be overrepresented. Wouldn't these
factors influence the response?

Doomster
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
--
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: ***@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
***@netgate.net
bunboy
2003-07-27 19:37:03 UTC
Permalink
I vote democrat almost always. They both stink but I still think the Dems
care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune. As a person who
has had access to Republican "talk" behind the scenes I don't like their
attitudes towards women, minorities, amd those less fortunate including the
small businessman and consumers. Democarats are just nicer. These are gross
generalities I know but in the big picture of things from my experience they
are true.
--
Bunboy The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone
else to blame
Post by The Doomster
You know, reading all these posts off this thread, not very many people actually
replied to your survey. Why don't you address this in some online polling site?
And wouldn't the poll be somewhat predictable? An overwhelming number of gamers
are men. Since blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented among PC owners, it
stands to reason that whites and Asians will be overrepresented. Wouldn't these
factors influence the response?
Doomster
Post by Omphalos
I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
--
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.
your email will bounce.
The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.
Doomster
--
Jordan Lund
2003-07-27 20:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omphalos
Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
Well I don't think it's any surprise that I lean so far left I need
special support to keep from walking in circles. Since I've been able
to vote there have been 4 Presidential elections, I voted for Dukakis,
Clinton (although I would have preferred Jerry Brown), Clinton, Nader.

Clinton never was liberal enough for my tastes, he didn't push hard
enough for gays in the military or universal health care in his first
term and he was too hamstrung by irrelevant Republican legal charges
his second term to get anything done.

In 2000 I realized that since I'm in Oregon there was no chance Bush
was going to win our state and I had a chance to vote my conscience. I
couldn't vote for Gore because of the whole recording industry lable
flap that happened under his and his wifes watch in the 80s. Ditto
Lieberman on the gaming thing. Not a chance I was going to vote for
Bush so I went with Nader.

- Jordan
Soomo
2003-07-28 18:34:58 UTC
Permalink
I doubt many non-American would have voted for Nader, but for sure he
would have gotten more votes than Bush, hypothetically speaking from
non-American. I can't think of any US president that have pissed off
more countries than Bush did. However, I can understand why Americans
love him.
ROFLOL. Nader all the way.;)
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;
Antonio Fanelli
2003-07-29 17:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soomo
I can't think of any US president that have pissed off
more countries than Bush did. However, I can understand why Americans
love him.
I wonder if they really loves him.
--
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti,
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/
JPM III
2003-07-29 20:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soomo
I doubt many non-American would have voted for Nader, but for sure he
would have gotten more votes than Bush, hypothetically speaking from
non-American. I can't think of any US president that have pissed off
more countries than Bush did. However, I can understand why Americans
love him.
Let me think.

George Washington went to war with the mother country, sparking a series of
revolutions all over the globe.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison played vital roles in this
revolutionary effort.

James Monroe told the rest of the world to keep your damn hands off our side
of the world, and they listened. I don't think the world liked Monroe, but
we loved him.

Harry Truman dropped some bigass bombs on Japan and sent the world into
nuclear terror for the next 30 years.

I'm sure the world didn't think too highly of Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam.

Bush has been a great president, even if only half his country agrees with
him only half the time. Doing the job isn't about doing every little thing
that 300 million people who don't understand politics want you to do. Saddam
would have been dead 10 years ago if that's how the American presidency
operated.
slapkicksy
2003-07-30 07:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by JPM III
Post by JPM III
Bush has been a great president, even if only half his country agrees with
him only half the time. Doing the job isn't about doing every little thing
that 300 million people who don't understand politics want you to do.
Saddam
Post by JPM III
would have been dead 10 years ago if that's how the American presidency
operated.
Says who? I mean, aside from you? Puppet.
I say it.

username
2003-07-28 19:23:14 UTC
Permalink
answer: like anyone else
Loading...