(Untitled)

[darin_n]

I promised not to write in this thing if it meant filling it up with pointless shit about my day that no one cares/should care about, and that is why I havent written

Comments

peter peter woman beater

[anonymous]

First of all, do not take offense to the subject of this entry. The meaning of this is to prove a point. if someone did not want to hear about peter peter the woman beater, they wouldnt read this entry. this is exactly the same as if they heard "you are now listening to the howard stern show!" and changed the channel accordingly. everyone knows who howard stern is, and simply the fact that he starred in a movie called "private parts" should give you an idea as to the nature of the radio show. i have nothing else to say except that people need to find better things to do with their time than sue people, get a job or something, really.
signing off,
peter

[dabubzilla]

darin, nader running is not a bad thing. it will affect the outcome of the election, but when he was on meet the press he said a few good things. he said that he thinks that the republicans and democrats are essentially the same and that they are both owned by corporate america, this corporate thing is probably true. he wants to offer people another option when what it comes down to is voting for the lesser of two evils between the democrats and the republicans. i know when i look at bush and kerry (or edwards, whatever) and think about who is going to get my vote, i only choose bush because i disagree with less of what he says than what kerry says, not because i really feel he is the best man, just that he is slightly less bad. with more options for candidates, people have a better selection and have a greater chance of finding someone who agrees with them

[darin_n]

I definately agree that the two party system is beckoning for reform but the fact remains that Nader is an extreme liberal and Kerry is a moderate liberal and Nader should realize that his running will only hinder the liberal cause. There is no possible way that he will be able to win an election this late in the race, nevermind the fact that a third party candidate has never come close. Nader didnt win a single state last time, his involvement in the election is only going to hurt the democratic (the party) cause. Nader is running because of his own vanity. I am in full support of every person having themselves heard, but there are much better ways for Nader to support the liberal ideals he represents without hindering the removal of Bush from office.

peter

[dabubzilla]

out of the whole post you HAD to chose the one line about politics... thats just like you... much love

-peter

Winning the Election

[anonymous]

I believe that Teddy Roosevelt won on the Bull Moose Party platform way back when...The only time in history a third party won the election.

Nader doesn't really beleive he will win. He is fed up with this two-party politics and is trying to make a point. I agree with his statements about everthing being corperate, but we still need someone competent to be president. I would pick Kerry over Bush (sorry Trevor).

The only way Democrats will win is if the Democratic party unifies itself behind one canadate instead oif multiple ones. Nader does threaten that, but if I remember correctly last time he ran he barely got 3% of the popular vote. I don't think he will get many in this election.

If it was up to me, I'd do away with the electorial college and base elections on popular vote. Any system that allows a someone to win Popular Vote, but still lose the election is flawed (and Im not referring to Bush vs. Gore. This has happened before I beleive).

Re: Winning the Election

[anonymous]

I don't believe that Roosevelt won on the Bull Moose Party, big time Woodrow Wilson won that election.

-James

Winning the Election, Part 2

[anonymous]

Here are some facts about the electorial college that I think both Darin and Trevor will find interesting

Censor

[anonymous]

It is ridiculous to censor the media in this day and age. I would like to think that the people of this country are educated enough to be able to hande a little nipple(it wasnt that great anyway). People need to realize that sex is a natural part of all life forms existence. If people would stop adhering to the ultra-conservative ideas of past times and accept the fact that people do have sex(and in some cases with members of the same sex) this country would be a better place. Personally I think Ashcroft is a fucking idiot and a disgrace to this country. Anyone who covers a statue, a work of art, because it is modeled after the beutiful form of a naked woman should not be in any position of power.
~Jack
PS- This entry does not mean that I condone LiveJournals.

Re:censor

[anonymous]

i think that there should be SOME cencorship, just not as much as there is. it may not be the best thing to have a statue of two dudes porkin' right next to a daycare center, but thats just my opinion...*wink* yeah thats it
-peter

Re: censor

[anonymous]

Mommy are those statues playing Leapfrog?

Heh.

Cui

Re: Censor

[anonymous]

just a fact:
in europe and particularly in france people value the beauty of the human figure. They have many nude beaches, shows with nudity are allowed on the air, and it is fine to walk downtown topless or nude.
I think it's stupid for our country to be all addicted to the hype about censorship. Though they shouldnt put porn on the channel next to disney or pbs, i think that we should stop flipping about the whole thing and realize that its normal to have a nipple (even if your a guy!) and that we all have bodies. big deal, live with it.
-Kent