Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

chaosman · 2004-10-27 13:47:13

READ THIS:

http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_ … 41027.html

And then PLEASE PROLIFERATE THIS NEWS !

Let it grow !

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 05:40:58

It does raise a question, though: Isn't an intermediate, rubber stamp vote equivalent to a direct vote?

Indeed, and without undermining the federalist structure of the nation. It's as "democratic" as it can get without screwing with the underlying principles.

Any state exhibiting this much confusion and incompetence shouldn't rank with OH and PA as one of the highest in electoral vote numbers. Give FL maybe...5.

I know what you mean...

It's just not that hard, people! C'mon!

Of course in 2000 most of the people that couldn't get the ballot right were trying to vote Democrat. :hm:

Maybe targeted vote cuts.

Felons, illegals, and dead people would be a good start. What did you think I was getting at?

This is about the 5th incident of elections-related violence I've read about in the past 1-1/2 months.

And that's just what makes the news. Odd that the vast majority of this stuff is coming from one end of the political spectrum. Seems that the donkey is flippin' out.

Jackasses.

READ THIS:
http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_ … 41027.html
And then PLEASE PROLIFERATE THIS NEWS !

Oh no! Bush is against making policy based on panic-stricken over-simplified analysis of incomplete data! The horror!

Anyone who says that the planet's climate hasn't changed in the last couple hundred years doesn't know what they're talking about. Anyone who says it's the direct and sole result of human beings burning fossil fuels... doesn't know what they're talking about. Perspective people. Look at all the data, all the contributiong factors, all the Earth's history. We are not on the verge of enviromental apocalypse here. Not of our own doing at any rate.

But now it's almost time for the spectacle of "democracy" dying. The lawyers are circling, the lines are drawn. Game on.
<shakes head in disgust>

We get the government we deserve, they say. Enjoy.

Palomar · 2004-10-28 06:08:13

This is about the 5th incident of elections-related violence I've read about in the past 1-1/2 months.
And that's just what makes the news. Odd that the vast majority of this stuff is coming from one end of the political spectrum. Seems that the donkey is flippin' out.
Jackasses.

LOL!

--Cindy

clark · 2004-10-28 06:27:19

Oh no! Bush is against making policy based on panic-stricken over-simplified analysis of incomplete data! The horror!

LOL!

In latest news, irony is at an all time high...

As for reducing electoral votes in any state... well, sounds good to me. We sure had it right after the Civil War, what with those laws requiring that your grandfather must have had a right to vote if you could- or the ones requiring intelligence tests. All very objective, all for the good and health of our democracy. I say it is time to return to the ways of our fore fathers.

You know, some argue that we can trace a natural decline within our American democracy around the begining of the 20th century... about the time women were allowed to vote. Coincedence? Perhaps. But then, i leave you all to make your analysis based on the facts and trends.

Maybe we can even go back to that old 3/5ths law on counting population for represenatives.

Ever forward progress and a bright new dawn I say!

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-28 06:56:16

The number of times I've seen somebody doing something half-witted and turned to my wife and said: "And that person has the vote ... ??!!!"
???
I really only support democracy because I can't think of a better way. But maybe there should be some kind of restriction on the number of "jackasses" who get to vote (?).
At least in America, the worst of the 'great unwashed' probably don't bother to vote anyhow. Here in Australia, we more or less force the mongrels to show up on polling day because voting is compulsory. (Are we suckers for punishment or what?! )

[P.S. While I'm ranting, I've heard compelling arguments against allowing just anyone to have children, too. As I've mentioned in the past, a woman I used to know would look at some kinds of parent and say there should be an examination you have to pass before being allowed to procreate. I think she may have had a good point and I think it may be just as applicable to voting, too! :hm: ]

clark · 2004-10-28 07:10:34

I recall a brief discussion I once had with a visitor from Turkey. He is a dentist in his native Turkey, well-off, and well educated. His wife and daughter were neighbors, and they were in America to establish hte daughters American citizenship (the mother was Turkish, but American born).

We were discussing democracy and voting, and he was of the definite opinion that allowing just anybody to vote was irrational and poorly thought out. He considered that there should be some type of requirement that gave people the right to vote, like a test or certain educational requirements.

He suggested that a knowledge of a certain number of languages would be agood starting point. 3 was the number he chose. I suppose as requirements go, that would be as valid as anything else.

Why not have an eligibility to vote in America based on being fluent in, I don't know, say two languages? That would of course disqualify 90% of the native population, and actually qualify most immigrants and illegal immigrants right off the bat. Of how about possessing a valid passport? That would disqualify 95% of the US population (and a few senators and represenatives!).

Or we could go to the old standby if that dosen't suit you, and simply base qualification on skin color and/or gender. Maybe keep the draft age as is, and only allow those over 35 to vote. Land owners only? Worked before, why not now? That ought to increase home ownership and would keep those poor people, and usually less educated, individuals out of the process completely. Or, perhaps just those making a certain income- how about $100,000 US a year?

Makes sense to me. :laugh:

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-28 07:53:23

I really only support democracy because I can't think of a better way.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-10-28 07:54:41

Everyone , every good citizen should have the right to vote
so this talk about only certain should go ahead is just silly

still it amazes me how the governator's can get into office

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodie … rnator.jpg
http://www.johnshakespeare.com.au/caric … /arnie.gif

Wonder who'll be next to get elected ? Mickey mouse, Bart Simpson ?

Seems there could be a bit of trouble in the Bush camp, 380 tonnes of explosives missing in Iraq. Does that make you feel safe, Mr. and Mrs. America?IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei passed on the letter from Iraqi authorities informing the agency of the theft to the Security Council.
He told the council that the high explosives had been lost after 9 April 2003, during "the theft and looting of governmental installations". The IAEA was told about the loss over two weeks ago, Dr ElBaradei said, but he had hoped to give US forces and Iraqi officials time to try to recover the missing explosives before the matter became public knowledge. After the fall of Baghdad, american troops were assigned to guard the oil ministry, while they ingored the mass lootings that took place, not only in the museums and office buildings, but also in the nuclear research facilities- the very facilities that might have contained information about those oh-so-dangerous "weapons of mass destruction" that Bush had his underwear in a bunch about. One pound of this explosive, in an improvised explosive device, has the power to take out an american amrmoured veichle . Recall any Previous attacks of this sort but using weaker explosive have resulted in about a 50/50 fatality/casualty ratio, when successfull. Let's just say that, if the entire stolen cache were to be turned into IEDs, and only 35% were successful in taking out such a target...
well no need to do the math because the number is just massive ( if you're still curious the if these explosives are held by Terrorists then you could be looking at 532 thousand fatalities).Half a kilogram (1lb) of a explosive related to HMX was enough to bring down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people.

The amounts apparently taken from the al-Qaqaa site could have filled three trucks. US weapons experts are concerned the explosives could be used in bomb attacks against US and Iraqi forces in the run-up to Iraq's planned elections in January.

It is not the first warning the IAEA has given about potentially dangerous material going missing.

:down:

RobertDyck · 2004-10-28 07:54:50

It does raise a question, though: Isn't an intermediate, rubber stamp vote equivalent to a direct vote?
Indeed, and without undermining the federalist structure of the nation. It's as "democratic" as it can get without screwing with the underlying principles.

Again with the "underlying principles". Doesn't the pledge of Pledge of Allegiance include the phrase "one Nation indivisible"? Face it; this is a battle you lost before you were borne. Although many of the founding fathers of the US intended the United States to be a loose confederation of independent nations, it isn't now. By the way, the word "State" means nation with its own sovereign independent government. But that's not the way it works now. As much as I find the idea of sending anyone other than voters to elect the president, state law requires the electors to vote according to voter results. The loose confederation of states is long since dead.

This whole argument is truly amazing. I'm seeing Americans argue against democracy. The argument that "some other" voter is stupid so shouldn't be allowed to vote just undermines democracy. Any rule you make applies to yourself. Voting used to be restricted to white, male land owners. Do you really want to take the vote away from yourself? I may be getting serious, but it's less than a week until you have to select your president.

As for intelligence test: Virginia used to have a law that required everyone mentally retarded to be sterilized. Deliberately removing "undesirable" individuals from the gene pool is called "eugenics". Adolph Hitler later used that as the model for his policies, although he took it much farther. Be careful. I try to convince American voters to learn about candidates and their policies, and argue for a better education system, but you can't decide who votes or who doesn't. Once you do so democracy collapses, freedom evaporates, liberty is gone.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 07:55:04

Quote
Oh no! Bush is against making policy based on panic-stricken over-simplified analysis of incomplete data! The horror!

LOL!
In latest news, irony is at an all time high...

So are you saying that global warming really is as bad as it's hyped to be, or admitting that we still don't know exactly what was up in Iraq?

[P.S. While I'm ranting, I've heard compelling arguments against allowing just anyone to have children, too. As I've mentioned in the past, a woman I used to know would look at some kinds of parent and say there should be an examination you have to pass before being allowed to procreate. I think she may have had a good point and I think it may be just as applicable to voting, too! ]

More so, I would think. Reproducing is a natural act, voting is purely a function of a particular political construct. Whatever one's position on quashing unrestricting breeding, to argue that it's acceptable but restricting voting is not would be completely nonsensical.

But alas, we are awash in democracy fetishists for whom all wisdom flows from the blissfully ignorant masses. They who base their decision on campaign ads they saw on tv shall lead us to salvation.

Here's your frisbee and "Cobra '04" pen.

Oh no, rant coming on...

Clark has a point, albeit not entirely the one he was trying to make. Any method we come up with for restricting "undesireables" from voting is going to be arbitrary, even a basic "issue competency test" would inevitably be hopelessly unobjective. At present we exclude a huge percentage of the population based on arbitrary factors. "So you're only 17? Doesn't matter how informed you are, can't vote. Yes, I know you only killed one person and it was an accident, but we don't let felons vote around these parts. I know you're not a bad person, but sorry. Yes, you've lived here for twenty years but you're not a citizen, beat it. And you, you're registered to vote in another precinct, what the hell are you doing here? No I'm not giving you a provisional ballot. Jackass."

That's the nature of our system, "democracy" necessarily entails either the hypocrisy of excluding those deemed unfit to vote by arbitrary factors, or the utter madness of letting everyone participate. Let kids vote. No seriously, to maintain the integrity of this democracy you have to. Watch 'em elect the ice cream man to the Senate. Otherwise we're all in agreement that it's perfectly reasonable to restrict the vote to those we don't think are responsible, intelligent or informed enough to use it wisely. On a fundamental level the whole thing is a sham, a farce.

About to get even more so I suspect.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 08:04:59

This is about the 5th incident of elections-related violence I've read about in the past 1-1/2 months.
And that's just what makes the news. Odd that the vast majority of this stuff is coming from one end of the political spectrum. Seems that the donkey is flippin' out.
Jackasses.
LOL!
--Cindy

More Rove-ian spin. The real voter fraud is being done by the GOP. And the Freepers are launching pre-emptive empty attacks to distract and lay smoke.

Just my 2 cents. . .

= = =

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/27/22442/878]This is pretty funny. Who needs a draft when you have a clone army. (Star Wars link to follow)

We must win against the Islamo-fascists, whatever it takes. 'Tis a pity GWB ain't got what it takes.

Not enough soldiers to pacify Fallajuh, not enough soldiers to secure Saddam's explosives, a military leadership that our handpicked Iraqi Prime Minister (Allawi) calls incompetent.

I appreciate the emotions expressed by Shaun, Cindy etc. . .

However, guys, your emperor ain't got no clothes.

= = =

Kerry ain't no Saviour either, only he doesn't claim to be one. . .

clark · 2004-10-28 08:07:26

So are you saying that global warming really is as bad as it's hyped to be, or admitting that we still don't know exactly what was up in Iraq?

Oh Cobra, such limited choices! It's an election year, must everything then be either/or? :laugh:

I choose both! Or, barring that, and inviting eternal damantaion, I choose Nader!

I once gave a presentation on the myth of global warming. Much research had led me to determine that the science had yet to acertain the turth of the matter. That was years and years ago though. Global warming isn't as bad as it's hyped to be, I look forward to cold weather and severe seasonal changes. Just my tastes though. Of course, the rest of the world seems to all be in agreement, along with just about every single respected scientific organization that there is a threat looming. DOD even did some worst case scenerio analysis on the topic (but they do that sort of thing for even a Kerry election, so whatever). Eh, I always wanted to see a glacier, and if I wait, I won't have to go anywhere- it'll come to me.

As for the irony, I leave it to you to figure out. It's no fun when I have to explain.

Clark has a point, albeit not entirely the one he was trying to make.

This is usally the case.

So if it is arbitrary (by is, I mean is), would it make sense to make it more arbitary, or less arbitrary?

I say only those who can salsa should get the vote! May the farce be with you.

Edit: Lemme see, American's being lectured on the where-fore of our democracy and the relationship of our federal government by a Canadian, an Australian who supports democracy because he hasn't found a better suit, and Bill, who feels. Is this Springer? :laugh:

Robert, be forwarned (and I for one thank you though) that some Brit's got into trouble when they sent some letters to some Amerikan's out in Ohio with advice on how to vote. We can be a touchy lot, or feely, as Bill demonstrates.

Palomar · 2004-10-28 08:17:33

This whole argument is truly amazing. I'm seeing Americans argue against democracy. The argument that "some other" voter is stupid so shouldn't be allowed to vote just undermines democracy. Any rule you make applies to yourself. Voting used to be restricted to white, male land owners. Do you really want to take the vote away from yourself? I may be getting serious, but it's less than a week until you have to select your president.
As for intelligence test: Virginia used to have a law that required everyone mentally retarded to be sterilized. Deliberately removing "undesirable" individuals from the gene pool is called "eugenics". Adolph Hitler later used that as the model for his policies, although he took it much farther. Be careful. I try to convince American voters to learn about candidates and their policies, and argue for a better education system, but you can't decide who votes or who doesn't. Once you do so democracy collapses, freedom evaporates, liberty is gone.

*Sorry, Robert, I can't help thinking you might be taking some comments here far too seriously (if the vote did go back to strictly white land-owning males, I'd be out obviously...).

I believe in the right of everyone to vote. I just wish more people would THINK before voting.

Not vote in favor of someone just because the guy or gal in the opposite party is an adulterer and "my Party members would never do that"...or just because mom and pop were Republicans or Democrats I am too.

There -are- a number of intellectually lazy, apathetic and/or just plain foolish people out there, alongside of responsible folks who try and think through the issues, study the candidates and their positions on things, etc. Just like there will always be a percentage of welfare mooches and lazy bums alongside hard-working, industrious taxpayers. Just a fact of life it seems. But no one here is suggesting "doing in" others ala the Third Reich.

I said earlier:

If most people would THINK about and STUDY the candidates, the issues, etc., before punching the button or dropping the ballot or throwing the lever I'd be all for "get rid of the EC entirely." Until then however...

--Cindy

::edit::

Bill: And the Freepers

*What are Freepers? ???

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-28 08:19:32

Sheesh! I was just expressing exasperation, that's all.

Other people here have the odd 'fascist moment' and seem to get away with it. Once in a blue moon I toss my bottle out of the pram ... and everyone gets upset.
:bars:

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 08:22:28

More Rove-ian spin. The real voter fraud is being done by the GOP. And the Freepers are launching pre-emptive empty attacks to distract and lay smoke.
Just my 2 cents. . .

The real voter fraud? Like the Democrats are just playing around, but those big mean Republicans are really serious about bogus votes?

I know it's easy to get drawn into the partisan torrent but don't let prejudices get in the way of objective reasoning. There are indeed some questionable practices on the Rpublican side, but it seems that the bulk of the outright fraud is from the Left. The violent outbursts as well.

Don't flip out Bill.

This is pretty funny. Who needs a draft when you have a clone army. (Star Wars link to folow)

Typical fudging that goes on in television productions. I've done some of this sort of thing myself, though not with political ads. Nothing on tv is real anymore.

Not enough soldiers to pacify Fallajuh,

A shortcoming of resolve and tactics, not numbers.

enough soldiers to secure Saddam's explosives

Which weren't there when our troops arrived. And further, raw HMX explosive isn't exactly readily usable in the field, it needs to be worked, processed and made into something. You can't just cram it in a pipe with a fuse and start blowing up Humvees.

Kerry ain't no Saviour either, only he doesn't claim to be one. . .

What it boils down to is Kerry will either A) get us out too quick or B) "stay the course" just like Bush. He won't be able to get our "allies" in, they've already said as much. Best case scenario, nothing changes. Except that the terrorists get a morale boost for a few weeks.

No, I don't think that's over the top. Whatever else, good or bad, electing Kerry will send a signal of wavering reslove to the enemy. I'm not saying he's going to roll over for them or anything, but I'm sick of pussy-footing around this.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 08:29:32

Just to stir stuff up more, how about a rousing Moon-Mars debate? One VERY VERY non-politically correct argument runs like this:

The Moon versus Mars can be easily resolved by a nugget of ancient Jewish wisdom. Shiksas are for practice.

The Moon may be fun, for a while, but Mars is where serious people go to settle down and raise their families.

clark · 2004-10-28 08:34:52

Other people here have the odd 'fascist moment' and seem to get away with it. Once in a blue moon I toss my bottle out of the pram ... and everyone gets upset.

We can reason with you. The facist is just a laugh.

Short intelligent answer though, is America has its own history on the effects of reducing eligibility to vote. In large part, we have moved ever forward in expanding the basic right to vote and have a direct (or indirect as the case may be) in who may govern us, and who may shape the laws by which we must all live. There are problems, it isn't all wonderful, it is messy- but to reinstutite more qualifiers in regards to voting would be a step backwards in our natural progression and our historic trend.

Instead of limiting, why not try to educate more? Instead of denying, why not work towards building reliable information networks that can provide a more objective picture? There is more than a direct solution available, but it isn't easy, and it requires more time and effort.

No, I don't think that's over the top. Whatever else, good or bad, electing Kerry will send a signal of wavering reslove to the enemy. I'm not saying he's going to roll over for them or anything, but I'm sick of pussy-footing around this.

Ah, FEAR! I like that. Always a good tactic in an election year- any election year. :laugh:

Don't do what the terroists want! Scrapping the bottom of the barrel Cobra?

Edit: Bill, the Moon is not your whore!

BWhite · 2004-10-28 08:43:05

More Rove-ian spin. The real voter fraud is being done by the GOP. And the Freepers are launching pre-emptive empty attacks to distract and lay smoke.
Just my 2 cents. . .
The real voter fraud? Like the Democrats are just playing around, but those big mean Republicans are really serious about bogus votes?
I know it's easy to get drawn into the partisan torrent but don't let prejudices get in the way of objective reasoning. There are indeed some questionable practices on the Rpublican side, but it seems that the bulk of the outright fraud is from the Left. The violent outbursts as well.
Don't flip out Bill.

No flipping out. :;):

The Democrats have 10,000 lawyers on call with several high powered legal teams equipped with corporate jets to confront GOP dirty tricks early and strong. After all, Rove is the guy who spead false rumors of an opponent being a pedophile just so his guy could win a judicial election.

= = =

But the simple fact is that Bush has been campaigning 100% on fear and emotion for the last month. Bush, the anti-Voltaire.

= = =

But blogger Andrew Sullivan said it best - - if AFTER 9/11 Bush cannot unite more than 50% of Americans behind his vision of leadership how strong of a leader can he possibly be?

Thus, we are better off not pretending to have a righteous Supreme Leader when we do not.

Elect Kerry and hold his feet to the fire. Kerry knows he is only human.

Elect Bush and then we all need to pretend he was annointed by God.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 08:43:18

The Moon may be fun, for a while, but Mars is where serious people go to settle down and raise their families.

Ah, better. Sheathing the knives. I'm inclined to agree, entirely and without reservation or qualifiers.

Instead of limiting, why not try to educate more?

I agree, this would be a better approach than new prohibitons to keep this farce of ours moving along.

Still no reason for expanding eligibility, loosening current requirements or scrapping electoral college, however. Just for the record.

Ah, FEAR! I like that. Always a good tactic in an election year- any election year.
Don't do what the terroists want! Scrapping the bottom of the barrel Cobra?

I'm just stating a fact is all. Do what you want with it. Pretending it's a non-factor is willful ignorance.

That's grounds for revocation of voting priveleges!

EDIT::

The Democrats have 10,000 lawyers on call with several high powered legal teams equipped with corporate jets to confront GOP dirty tricks early and strong.

And without question to initiate some dirty tricks of their own.

Palomar · 2004-10-28 08:47:12

Elect Bush and then we all need to pretend he was annointed by God.

*Actually, that viewpoint holds with evangelical Christians (and perhaps some other sects within Christianity) who do sincerely believe that God -- and God alone -- chooses world leaders. They claim it's scriptural (can't recall wherein the Bible they point to). However, the folks back in my childhood church DO turn out to vote; I guess they think God is working his will through them or something (who knows).

Read an article about an Amish farmer who, despite encouragement from a few members within his community to vote this year (they seldom if ever do), waved his hand dismissively and said it's entirely up to God. ???

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-10-28 08:47:49

This is pretty funny. Who needs a draft when you have a clone army. (Star Wars link to folow)
Typical fudging that goes on in television productions. I've done some of this sort of thing myself, though not with political ads. Nothing on tv is real anymore.

True, but its still funny. That's all I said.

Tell Rove to hire some better CGI people.

BWhite · 2004-10-28 08:50:21

But here is a serious point.

In the months that followed 9/11, the President had virtually unanimous support. Today that support is close to 50%.

Since that is obviously true how can anyone pretend he is a strong leader? We need to defeat the Islamo-fascists, whatever it takes.

GWB ain't got what it takes. Kerry might not either but affirming Bush going in the wrong direction hurts not helps.

Remember the medical ethic: First, do no harm.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 08:52:02

Tell Rove to hire some better CGI people.

Yeah, just cloning part of the crowd and using it five or six times, right next to one another is damn lazy.

Take some pride in your fakery people! :laugh:

clark · 2004-10-28 08:55:54

Still no reason for expanding eligibility, loosening current requirements or scrapping electoral college, however. Just for the record.

Duly noted. Status quo, check.

I'm just stating a fact is all. Do what you want with it. Pretending it's a non-factor is willful ignorance.

A fact? Okay, so it's a fact that if we elect Kerry, we invite the terroists to think that we are weak- and this is based on what, terroist network poll? Where as it is not a fact that global warming is occuring when growing evidence continues to suggest that it is?

The way you pull off these acrobatic mind jumps is simply breath-taking. :laugh:

We elected Bush and the terroists attacked. Something tells me that if we elect Bush again, they will attack again. We elect Kerry, something tells me that they will attack regardless. If we don't want to give in to the terroists, I guess we better go shop till we drop too! :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-10-28 08:59:28

Tell Rove to hire some better CGI people.
Yeah, just cloning part of the crowd and using it five or six times, right next to one another is damn lazy.
Take some pride in your fakery people! :laugh:

Dude, we AGREE!!

Now I gotta do some real work.

Ciao!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-10-27 13:47:13

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#102 2004-10-28 05:40:58

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#103 2004-10-28 06:08:13

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#104 2004-10-28 06:27:19

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#105 2004-10-28 06:56:16

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#106 2004-10-28 07:10:34

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#107 2004-10-28 07:53:23

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#108 2004-10-28 07:54:41

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#109 2004-10-28 07:54:50

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#110 2004-10-28 07:55:04

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#111 2004-10-28 08:04:59

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#112 2004-10-28 08:07:26

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#113 2004-10-28 08:17:33

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#114 2004-10-28 08:19:32

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#115 2004-10-28 08:22:28

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#116 2004-10-28 08:29:32

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#117 2004-10-28 08:34:52

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#118 2004-10-28 08:43:05

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#119 2004-10-28 08:43:18

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#120 2004-10-28 08:47:12

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#121 2004-10-28 08:47:49

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#122 2004-10-28 08:50:21

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#123 2004-10-28 08:52:02

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#124 2004-10-28 08:55:54

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#125 2004-10-28 08:59:28

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer