Please please don't do it.
Hear me out...

Yes, our two-party system is a heavy cross to bear, and I would love to do away with it.
It's a real shame that we are reduced to chosing between the lesser of two evils, but that is the reality of the situation we have.

Let's say you have 11 people voting.
5 vote for greater evil.
4 vote for lesser evil.
2 abstain (or vote for Nader, who has no chance whatsoever of winning, so in effect they didn't vote at all).
The result?
More evil wins, and the two Nader voters get to feel good about themselves and say, "Well, at least I didn't vote for Bush so you can't blame me." But, if they voted for lesser evil, at least lesser evil would be in office rather than greater evil.
So, the people get a more evil leader, and the less than 2% can feel good about not voting for more evil.
Where's positive gain for the people in that?

I can't understand how that makes sense.
Who, besides yourself, does that help?
Do you support the Green Party because they are activists and care for the environment and the most important things?
That all sounds well and good, but try and look at it objectively and somewhat pragmatically.
I agree with what the Green Party stands for, but sadly that is beside the point at this stage.
Ask yourself...
Is the point of being an activist feeling good about yourself or helping others?

Ralph Nader has absolutely NO CHANCE of winning. Say all you want, that simple fact remains.

So, what is the result of you casting a vote for him?
Simply one less vote for Kerry.
That's all.

So, pragmatically, what you achieve by your personal "activism" is giving Bush a better chance of winning.
As close as this race is turning out to be, the miniscule 1 or 2% that Nader may recieve could very well be a deciding factor.
So, in an attempt to assuage your conscience by not voting for Kerry because you don't like the system, you could have to live with the fact that you helped Bush win another term.
No different AT ALL than not voting, except you get the selfish pleasure of having a smug smile when you say you voted for Nader.
Again, what is the point of activism, personal gratification or helping others?

Why do you think that Republican groups are donating money to Nader's campaign?
Not to mention, what does it say about Nader's integrity to accept the money.
He knows he has no chance of winning.
He knows he is basically taking votes away from Kerry, because no Green Party member would vote for Bush.
He knows that the Republicans realize this so they want him to do as well as he possibly can because he is taking votes from Kerry that have no chance of going to Bush.
He knows that's why they are giving him money.
Knowing all this he still doesn't drop out of the race.
Not for any higher ideals, because, just like you, he is effectively sacrificing his ideals for the sake of his own bullshit pride.
His books and speeches may make a positive difference in people's minds and lives, but his staying in the race makes a negative difference in those same lives.

Ideals are funny tricky little things.
Sometimes it's not easy to tell if we are adhering to them or betraying them.
They get in the way of objective and pragmatic thought.
I have often been a victim of this.

Do me a favor...
Take a pen and paper and write down the issues that mean the most to you when it comes to who should be president.
Examine each of these issues and consider where we would be if Bush were elected.
Examine each of these issues and consider where we would be if Kerry were elected.
Examine each of these issues and consider where we would be if you vote for Nader.

Try to think of ways your issues would be helped if you give Nader another vote, rather than Kerry.
Tell me, how, in any concievable way, your issues would get any help if Nader got 10% rather than 2%?

Which of your specific issues does Kerry stand against?
How are your issues harmed by Kerry getting into office?

If you truly believe that every vote counts, and you vote for Nader than you are doing nothing but helping Bush get into office.
If you don't honestly believe that every vote counts, why bother voting at all?
How does your vote cast for the Green Party, who doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hell of winning, help work towards accomplishing your ideals?

Wouldn't the Green Party be helped much more by you voting for someone that is closer to your own ideals and perhaps volunteering to help them with their envrionmental efforts and lobbying so maybe they can gain more votes and actually giving them some tiny bit of hope winning the next time?

I submit, that by voting for Nader, rather than Kerry, you are actually betraying your ideals.

Here is a simple question that sometimes has a very complex answer, nevertheless, it is imperative to be honest and frank with yourself and answer it truthfully.

What will best serve, not display or reflect, but SERVE your ideals?

Vote Kerry.
Thank you for your time.

I agree with you actually. I've been polled several times and my response is always 'Nader'. Politicians base their jobs on polls... and I believe that's the best way to send the message.

Yet rest assured that when I go to the both I'm voting against Bush first. Since my state is a swing state, that means Kerry.

Nader is polling at basically nothing right now. He's off the ballot in Pennsylvania, and a load of other states. I think he was on every ballot in 2000; this year, he's only got the twenty or so brought to him by the Reform Party (that same party that once had Pat Buchanan as their candidate). The lack of enthusiasm for Nader's run in 2004 is exemplified by his failure to qualify for the ballot in California. CALIFORNIA!

It is my firm belief that people who are saying they will vote for Nader now would rather sit out this election than vote for Kerry. Many Greens have allied themselves with the Democratic effort this election to oust Bush. There are a few holdouts, but you can't be 100% in everything. I seriously doubt that Nader will have the kind of impact he had in 2004. The only place I'm worried about is Florida, because it's crazyland down there.

one raven : are you absolutely sure, that kerry is the lesser of to evils.
I dont, he's the sort that would push, the big red button and say oops.
dont waste your vote, let common sense prevail.

I dont, he's the sort that would push, the big red button and say oops.

This sort of paranoia would crack me up if it wasn't so sad. Just so I have it straight, it's all about the big red button and saying "oops"?

Because I understand: George W. Bush hasn't pushed the big red button, and he certainly hasn't said, "Whoops". And, as we know, wars are really cool, really good things that get everybody involved what's best for them, so W owes us no "oops" for being wrong about WMD, about Al Qaeda, and about the Iraqi response.

Makes sense to me: raise an illegitimate fear of what might happen without any means of justifying that fear in order to ignore what's already on the historical record--the best thing to do is to give in to irrationality in order to avoid the possibility of something irrational.

Explain to us, please, your big red button theory. On what do you base it?

I doubt I'll vote at all, having school work and a job. I'm calm though, since NY voted against Bush before and will do so again. Although my parents, two new voters this year, are hard-core Republicans.

Uh, I wanted to ask, after I sent the card to register they sent me a letter saying they need some whole bunch of information and stuff to be sent in, and that if I don't send it I'll have to do all the paperwork right before I vote. There was a website which I of course forgot. Q: What website, what stuff?

Mis-t-highs is right.
You can just tell that kerry couldn't resist pushing that big red button at the white house that says "don't push".
I'm not saying I could resist necessarrily, that button is like a drug, which is why the president needs to be a man of steel.
I don't know why they don't just remove the button, or put a plastic case over it, but hey its there. Please don't vote kerry, he can't be trusted around the button.

About who would press the big red button first:
It doesn't matter. A few more 9/11s and anyone can press any button of any size and any color without recourse. It's not the Administration. It's the PEOPLE stupid!

It's not the Administration. It's the PEOPLE stupid!

Yup, I absolutely agree. President doesn't act alone, when it comes to buttons; that is provided by the constitution, so you can't ignore it. And, who elected all the people that went along with Bush to press buttons? We did. That means we messed up the entire thing, not just one gov't post.

Yeah, they should stop fitting all new houses with big red buttons. And remove big red buttons from all of the old houses.
I know what buttons people have in their own home is their own business but we can no longer trust the general public to act responsibly with their big red buttons.

No, I like your initial idea of removing the Big Red Button or putting a "plastic case over it". Unfortunately, billions (maybe trillions) are budgeted to make the Big Red Button bigger, redder, and easier to push.

David Cobb is the Green Party candidate, not Nader. Nader is an Independent this time around.

To your post: 5 vote for evil, 4 vote for less evil, 2 vote for a third party. Are you absolutely sure that those 2 would have voted for Kerry? What about Badnarik of the Libertarian Party? Absolutley pro-choice (at least, against federal legislation restricting choice)... might lean towards Dems. Very ANTI gun control. Might lean towards Reps. Pro legalizing drugs ... might lean towards Dems. ANTI an opressive tax system ... might lean towards Reps. Pro gay marriage, might lean towards Dems. Depending on which issues a Libertarian voter might find most salient to his or her political being, one could vote either way. So, Badnarik voters might take votes away from both candidates. Badnarik is actually on the ballots in ALL 50 states.

It seems you would like it if people would not fully exercise their right to vote by being forced to vote for one of only two candidates? If I don't see either major candidate as being the one I want in office, but I vote for one of them just because Nader or Badnarik (my candidate, by the way) has no chance of winning, THAT would be a wasted vote. That is what democracy is all about.

Perhaps if third party candidates were able to get enough support in a given election, thereby becoming able to receive matching campign funds, they won't have to spend most of their money getting enough support just to get their names on ballots the next time around. They'll be able to more actively campaign and actually get to participate in the debates and allow the people to hear their views. How many on here are informed enough to know Badnarik and his views on the issues. Figure maybe less than 3% of the general public even know the name? I would say that there are many "undecideds" out there, whom if they were to take a survey, would likely fall into the category of Libertarian. But, since many think like you, few people vote Libertarian (or Green, or otherwise) because they're not one of the two main parties and few will ever even get to hear what they have to say.

Tiassa:
why did the american attack Afganistan, and the Taliban, to find Osama Bin Laden.
did they find OBL,( NO) but a change of regime has made all the difference.
why did the american attack Iraq an Saddam Hussain,
to find Weapons of Mass Distruction.
did they find WMD,(NO) but a change of regime as made all the difference.
why has Libia become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
why has Iran become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
have you noticed how many countrys, that were once your enemy, are now your allies.
whether you like bush or not he has'nt done so bad.
what you lose from one hand, you gain back with the other.
though we'ed have liked to have found WMDs and OBL, it is the start of a new world order, eventually all the troubles will ease off.
but kerry is not the man for the job.
it's better the devil you know, than the devil you dont

Mis-t-highs:

How disrspectful. Oh, well, it's what's to be expected of a cowardly Bushmonger.

In the meantime, that's a strange picture of the world you've spun.

All of your arguments make sense if we decide that freedom, compassion, and the good things about the noble American vision are all bullshit and instead celebrate might is right and tyranny with a smile.

If you want us to rumble around changing regimes, I'm sure we'll find a way to manage. Either you're with us or against us.

Then again, some prefer more intelligent solutions, not just ones that look really good because we get to blow people up on CNN.

Such bloodthirstiness, such celebration of the lowest aspects of humanity, are best left to warmongers like you, and only the stupid think you can bring freedom, compassion, and stability at the end of a rifle.

As you have shown, Mis-t-highs, the only reasons to vote for Bush are hatred of life, hatred of dignity, and hatred of peace.

Of course, your disrespect is merely a symptom of your stupidity, so I suppose I owe you another chance:

• Explain to us, please, your big red button theory. On what do you base it?

what I'd like to know, is how you come to call misty, a warmonger, disrespectful, and cowardly.
she has'nt said once, she pro war, it looks to me as she was just stating the obvious.
it's you who are disrespectful, not her.

as for a big red button, I'd rather have a puppet, in the white house who's controlled by the people behind.
then a bleeding heart liberal, who has the power to destroy an entire country, rather then commit american boys to fight a war.

and I'm not pro war either.

one raven : are you absolutely sure, that kerry is the lesser of to evils.
I dont, he's the sort that would push, the big red button and say oops.
dont waste your vote, let common sense prevail.

Tiassa:
why did the american attack Afganistan, and the Taliban, to find Osama Bin Laden.
did they find OBL,( NO) but a change of regime has made all the difference.
why did the american attack Iraq an Saddam Hussain,
to find Weapons of Mass Distruction.
did they find WMD,(NO) but a change of regime as made all the difference.
why has Libia become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
why has Iran become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
have you noticed how many countrys, that were once your enemy, are now your allies.
whether you like bush or not he has'nt done so bad.
what you lose from one hand, you gain back with the other.
though we'ed have liked to have found WMDs and OBL, it is the start of a new world order, eventually all the troubles will ease off.
but kerry is not the man for the job.
it's better the devil you know, than the devil you dont
how are these two quotes, warmongering, disrespectful, and cowardly.

Of course, your disrespect is merely a symptom of your stupidity, I dont think she owes you another chance.

one_raven

its easy to eliminate that you know
change to the preferential system

then the 2 voters would then have the lesser evil as 2 or they would only have themselves to blame

whitewolf

i dont understand your atitude
i was brought up in a family who see voting as a responcability, its more important than the time it takes and there are so many ways to vote absentiee if you cant get to the booth that well, it IS a crime not to vote

i just dont understand americans especially who jump up and down about how partiotic they are but they cant go and do the one thing there country NEEDS them to do. THATS citizenship, not saying some oath and saluting the flag

Audible

I consider Mis-t-highs disrespectful and cowardly insofar as the question asked went without an answer. The response is warmongering--e.g. "It doesn't matter that the justifications for war were dishonest, just as long as we think we're winning." Additional cowardice comes when one is willing to ignore history in order to victimize themselves with fear of the unknown. Being an American does sometimes take courage, and that courage doesn't always involve killing someone else. Sometimes, that courage is invested in growth of the self. Raising dishonesty as a response to a question just isn't courageous.

If only people in your position, Audible, or Mis-t-high's, could argue honestly and substantially, you might be worthy of respect. The sad thing is that you don't have to do much to get my respect; merely, you simply need to not ask me to put that respect aside.

The real question is, what further chances do I owe either you or Mis-t-high to be honest?

Really, either one of you are welcome to fill us in on the detail of the "big red button" theory.

Or else maybe I should oppose Bush because he might start raping children?

So, Audible, answer me a few questions, if you have the courage:

(1) Should there be a valid reason to go to war?
(2) Should that valid reason be true?
(3) Why credit the Bush administration with Libya's change when the EU has been working the Colonel over for years on that very point?
(4) Why credit Iran as becoming an ally with the West?
(5) What enemies become allies?
(6) Would you agree that even though no primary objective of two wars has been accomplished or even, in the case of one, real, the United States should go around invading countries anyway?
(7) What is the basis of the "big red button" paranoia?

All you've done with the "big red button" issue is repeated groundless paranoia. Hardly respectful.

If you want to act like a punk, Audible, I'm certainly willing to treat you accordingly. However, if you can't be respectful, why should we listen to a child killer like you?

(And if you don't get what that last line means, that's your problem.)

Kerry is not the lesser of two evils, he will be a great president.

If you're worried about nuclear war, Bush is developing new nuclear weapons, isn't doing much about nuclear proliferation, and supported the Barry Goldwater approach to Vietnam, which included the idea that nuclear weapons be used there for christssake. Bush also thinks God is on his side, which is scarier than his incompetence.

We allow more than two parties, but only two stand out for a good reason, that's what works in a free market, you need a united front to take out an incumbent, I don't think that dynamic will ever change.

Kerry is not the lesser of two evils, he will be a great president.


JFK great? FDR great? Or Clinton great?

There is no big difference between GW and JFK. Except that GW appears somewhat challenged. Nader makes 100 times more sense than GW and JFK combined. If GW will be elected, It's good. that means that somebody like Nader will have chances to be elected in the future. Kerry's election will just give GOPers an excuse to blame all ills on the left. There is no doubt that shit will hit the fan soon. It will be hard to GOPers to blame Clinton and left conspiracy for everything if they will have both President and Congress under control for 8 years. Kerry must lose, spineless, clueless arm chair liberal. Democratic and Republican parties, true servants of the corporative capital and zionism, must be abolished and cursed. GO GW! Bush Cheiney 2004!!!

Kerry is not the lesser of two evils, he will be a great president.


JFK great? FDR great? Or Clinton great?
Yes

But how great can Kerry be? Clinton great or JFK great? Meaning questioable or unquestionably great?

I agree with you Dixon to a point, both candidates are really both scum from the same cloth. Although the US does deserve 4 more of Bush. The repercussions of it would resound far and wide, and everyone would suffer.

David Cobb is the Green Party candidate, not Nader. Nader is an Independent this time around.
I'm aware of that, but the majority of his supporters are Green Party members.

To your post: 5 vote for evil, 4 vote for less evil, 2 vote for a third party. Are you absolutely sure that those 2 would have voted for Kerry?
Of course not.
Hell, a few of them may have even gone for Bush, but I am playing the odds and trying to address the majority of Green Party voters.

It seems you would like it if people would not fully exercise their right to vote by being forced to vote for one of only two candidates?
Absolutley not.
I'm not sure how you got that impression, but you are mistaken.
I think, as I pointed out, that the twoparty system is an atrocious self-limiting system.


Perhaps if third party candidates were able to get enough support in a given election, thereby becoming able to receive matching campign funds, they won't have to spend most of their money getting enough support just to get their names on ballots the next time around. They'll be able to more actively campaign and actually get to participate in the debates and allow the people to hear their views.
I agree, but that sad fact is that is simply not going to happen this time around.
Either Bush or Kerry will win, and sadly, there is no way around that fact.
So people should really look at the two of them, this race being as tight as it is, and decide which one of them more closely align with their views, ideals and goals.
I'm not even asking people not to vote for Bush, I'm just asking people to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions and know where their votes are going.




How many on here are informed enough to know Badnarik and his views on the issues. Figure maybe less than 3% of the general public even know the name? I would say that there are many "undecideds" out there, whom if they were to take a survey, would likely fall into the category of Libertarian. But, since many think like you, few people vote Libertarian (or Green, or otherwise) because they're not one of the two main parties and few will ever even get to hear what they have to say.
As asguard so wisely pointed out, the Preference Voting System (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/rich.htm) would do away will all this mess and allow people to cast votes that actually align most closely with their beliefs without fear of inadvertently helping their least favorite get into office.
It is a brilliant and very fair system.
Maybe we can get Nader, Cobb and Badnarik to team up and lobby for it. Would you be willing to volunteer your time and money to the cause?
I would.

Going back to the whole "Big red button" issue, I think it would do you well to take a look at the fact that Bush is the first president since the end of the cold war to stop nuclear disarmament, and actually developed NEW easier to use and more "practical application" Nuclear weapons. Ignoring all the Depleted Uranium we're pumping through Afghanistan and Iraq (some people thing those don't count as nuclear weapons because they don't explode, but I say if it's radioactive and causes major rises in cancer and birth defects among the local populations, then it may as well be!) Bush's new "bunker busting" nukes are entirely irresponsible, and wholly more likely to be used.

One third the yield of a Hiroshima bomb, sure, but that' still enough to kill about 20,000 people in an urban center. Now who should we trust with that red button? The warmongering psychopath who won't say he was wrong to kill all those people for nothing, or the former anti-war protester? Which one do you think really values human life?

Well, Mystech, had you paid attention you would have noticed that Kerry:

1) Admitted that given the intelligence known to GW at the time he would have made the same decision to attack Iraq.

2) Admitted that Bush is doing right thing in Iraq; but he's not tough enough. Kerry will be tougher, he'll mix Falludga (population 700,000) with dirt to destroy evil terrorists. I doubt he'll find enough of fools worldwide to do this dirty job or to pay for it.

3) Kerry openly admitted that Israel's security will be #1 his concern. Isn't that sickening?

We might also recall that it was the Bush administration that openly refused to rule out the nuclear option.

What lowered standards we live by; it used to be the threat of a massive empire. Now it's a 6'4 Arab with a chip on his shoulder that fuels the lust to see American nuclear fire rain over the Earth.

Even if someone like Nader got to be president, he'll be stymied by congress. You think the Republicans and Democrats will let some third-party president act like he's the cock of the walk? What the third parties need to do is build from the bottom up, and capture some seats in congress. That way, they can influence the two major parties and pave the way for a potential third party president. Unfortunately, people like Nader are only interested in doing just enough to hurt the Democrats in swing states. I always wondered why Nader doesn't seek to get like 10-20 percent from states like New York and California, instead of getting 3% in Iowa or Minnesota. Just seems like spite.

I dont know much about your political system but here minority partys always do well in the senate and badly in the house

the greens or the democrats will never form goverment as out political system stands but they can find themselves in control of the senate because labor will hardly ever surport a libral bill and vice versa (exception is surply which both partys will always pass). This means that the greens or the democrats or god forbid in the senerate as it is now, family first, can chose wether a bill will pass or be blocked. Last term the goverment had something like 60 double disalusion triggers because of an aliance between the greens labor and the demos

why cant your green party or whatever it is do the same?

Because Nader has delusions of grandeur.

Wow while perusing this thread, I noticed a few people had opposing views , to tiassa.
and even though they were'nt rude to him, the opposite cannot not be said, I just hope for is sake his daughter, does not ever reads his posts.
she could only come to the conclusion, that her father was a c#@t.
he is the most rude and nasty bast@#d, I have ever came across and to call some one, a child killer, without any reason, goes much much to far.
would he like to be called, a child killer.
tiassa you are not worthy of my shit.

I'll be happy to answer your bullshit, Preacher:

Wow will perusing this thread, I noticed a few people had opposing, to tiassa.

Some agree, some don't want to take it up with me, and some just don't care at all.

and even though they were'nt rude to him, the oposite cannot not be said

How so? I would appreciate a demonstration, especially since I've already established my cause for perception of rudeness.

I just hope for is sake his daughter, does not ever reads his posts.

I intend to teach her to not buy into the kind of shortsighted bullshit I find so offensive.

she could only come to the conclusion, that her father was a c#@t.

This is America. Even if I let her be the kind of liar you defend, she'll still think I'm a cunt.

he is the most rude and nasty bast@#d, I have ever came across and to call some one, a child killer, without any reason, goes much much to far.

Did you see the parenthetic note I left for that poster? Same applies to you.

would he like to be called, a child killer.

Been called worse. Your ignorance is neither my fault nor my problem.

As I advised Audible: And if you don't get what that last line means, that's your problem.

tiassa you are not worthy of my shit.

Whatever. You are demonstrably not smart enough for me to care about that judgment.

Here, I'll give you a hint: If you think it's wrong of me to accuse Audible of being a child killer without merit, then what of either Mis-t-highs or Audible pushing the assertion that Kerry will kill millions of children?

Try reading sometime, Preacher. Future stupidity to the degree you've just shown will not be considered worth a mere fart, much less shit.

Literacy. Comprehension. Try it sometime, Preacher. Your Gospel of Ignorance isn't worth even your own effort.

:rolleyes:

one raven. doesn't your coutnry have a preferance system?

ie you could put nader first, kerry second. then as soon as nader loses, your vote goes to kerry anyway

Tiassa:

I was a bit puzzled to how, you could be so rude, and get away with it.

you were rude to mis-t-highs, because she upset you in some way, justified or not, no need for all the abuse.

you were rude to audible, and all he did was defend mis-t-highs, still no need for all the abuse.

and you were rude to me, fair enough, I may have deserved some, as I was rude too.

but your a moderator, surely you should set an example, and follow your own guidelines. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35527

and I am sure when audi/misty are next on line they will address your grievances.

let's try and be a little more civil to each other,
so I'll start, I apologise for being so rude to you, there was no call for it.

one raven. doesn't your coutnry have a preferance system?

ie you could put nader first, kerry second. then as soon as nader loses, your vote goes to kerry anyway
Sadly, no.

Preacher:

but your a moderator, surely you should set an example, and follow your own guidelines.

This ain't my forum, and in my forum I don't often have this sort of problem. With the exception of one recent poster, people generally enter my forum--Ethics, Morality, and Justice--with a general understanding of the idiocy of bringing an unethical form of argument and expecting results.

Furthermore, this is an election season. Rhetoric always sharpens as we run up to the cycle.

Additionally, what can I say? Every time I stoop to accomodate inferior intellects at this forum, someone inevitably complains that I'm being rude to people by addressing them in the tone and manner they prefer.

"Hurting children" is a counterpoint I use when the occasion calls for it, and what's amazing is that never has anyone targeted by that point ever asked, "Now, where did that come from?"

The reason for this is because they know. The answer is, "Well, I thought this argument was about making irrational and hurtful assertions, since that's all you do."

And so it is with the "big red button" theory.

As to you, Preacher, I don't really have any hostility in my heart. But I must beseech you to consider beyond one immediate post. If you start from the "big red button" post of Mis-t-highs' and work forward from there, you can tell I was irritated in my initial response, but you'll notice that I didn't get really pissed off until Mis-t-highs gave a dis response. And when Audible popped two cents in, completely ignoring the content of Mis-t-highs' posts and reiterating the offensive "big red button" theory, well?

It's just that it really irritates me when people want to toss such judgment around without acknowledging the facts. Yes, I'm sorry to have stomped on you as such, but I admit I'm unrelenting and unrepentant about this topic. Everybody in the world is insulted when the arguments against Kerry become so extreme and baseless. If I'm going to take shit for smacking back at those insults, well ... we can all be thankful the election cycle ends in a couple weeks. After all, when the third-party moralistic self-interests wake up and help us end the Bush nightmare, they, too, will have the right to hound Kerry every time he goes astray; they won't be expected to line up and march behind their man like the GOP.

I just don't think it's a whole lot to ask that people have a point behind their rudeness.

Tiassa:
it seems I was disrespectful to John F Kerry, for which I apologise, it was rather flippant to say he'd press the big red button.I honestly dont think he'd do that, it was very stupid of me to say so.
but I must say I dont think, he would make a good President that's not to say Bush is either.
but as I said it's better the devil you know, than the devil you dont. IMO, if Hilary Clinton had gone for the Presidency, then that for me, would have been a whole different ball game. as you have respect for kerry, I do for Mrs Clinton. so I am sorry if I enraged you.
I will try to think before I speak, in future.

"Sadly, no." - one raven

ouch, i feel sorry for you

I wouldn't mind a playoff bracket.