[Osx-nutters] 300 million..

[Chuck Bennett]

On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Roger Howard wrote:

> On Thu, October 19, 2006 8:59 am, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Roger Howard wrote:
>>
>>>  I won't be voting
>>> for anyone pandering to the insane religious minority, to the gun
>>> or oil
>>> lobbies, to big pharma, etc.
>>
>>
>> I guess that means you won't be voting as you can't find a sliver of
>> daylight between the R and D on taking money from those folks.
>> You would be surprised how many Democrats get money from the NRA or
>> Exxon (for example)
>
> No, I never said anything about who takes money; they are all  
> dirty, and
> I'm not going to declare my intention not to vote. That's reckless.  
> What I
> said was I won't vote for those who pander to such groups; more  
> accurately
> I should probably say I'll vote for that person, from the major  
> parties
> (sorry Greens, love yah but whatever), who panders less. The Dems  
> are in
> general far more likely to support some form of gun control, while  
> most
> Republicans are likely to reject any; the Dems are far more likely to
> demand a "windfall tax" from the oil industry so that it isn't in a
> position of making record-breaking profits every month while our  
> average
> energy prices keep going up; Dems are far less likely to support  
> Falwell.
> Sorry Chuck, I sincerenyl hope you're not so blinded as to think the
> parties really are equivalent, as some apathetic gen-x'ers love to  
> insist
> as their way of justifying not voting. They aren't. Yes, the Dems have
> significant issues, but they are far, far closer to my ideals than  
> most on
> the other side of the aisle.

No, I understand.   For me, of course, the very things that cause you  
to vote for them are the things that cause me to vote against.
This year, for me, it is very much a vote against, since I sure as  
hell don't approve of the current group of mutts.

>
> I won't rule out voting for Republicans; there are some who seem to  
> have
> similiar positions to my own, but where it means they compromise  
> those to
> support their party, as McCain has repeatedly proven he's willing  
> to do,
> they won't get my vote by default.

Like wise, I don't rule out voting for a Dem.  It is likely that  
Deborah Pryce (R-lying rat bastard) will not get my vote and  Mary Jo  
Kilroy (D) will, even though she is
very anti-gun.    In this case, my vote will be against the  
Republican and I'll deal with the Democrat as soon as they come up  
with a better challenger.



>
>>
>> As for religion,  I just saw on the news that all of a sudden
>> Hilliary started wearing a cross and we know she doesn't do anything
>> by accident.
>
> Who the fuck cares? You think that's pandering to the religious  
> right? No,
> that's trying to convince mainstream America that she's not ANTI- 
> religion,
> not a satanist or a witch

She IS a witch.   Well, I'm pretty sure she floats anyway. <http:// 
www.pritchettcartoons.com/witch.htm>


> , as many on the far right love to paint her. Do
> you really think she's going to be as supportive of the religious  
> right as
> Bush?

Nah, I just found it typical of her.    She is a damn good politician  
though that is damning with faint praise these days.


=c=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tit-wank.com/pipermail/osx-nutters/attachments/20061019/d2efd305/attachment-0001.html