Shodan, I would suggest that you do not repeat those remarks about dead American soldiers in any bar in Tennessee.
DISCLAIMER–I do not drink in bars.
There were also reports that Saddam had stockpiles of sand IN Bagdad, elucidator, and that there were vast quantities of sand hidden in various parts of Iraq, buried under the WMDs.
And, European intelligence sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein tried to purcahse additional sand from Africa.
Thanks for the warning. I don’t spend much time in Tennessee, nor was my remark concerning dead soldiers - it was about Bush winning the election.
And I do most of my drinking at home.
Maybe it’s a stereotype, but I suspect a lot of people in Tennessee bars are less likely to react the way hypersensitive, knee-jerk assholes do.
Regards,
Shodan
Too true. See here? Those shrewd Africans just put sand in a barrel, market it with a fancy, elite-sounding name (Yellowcake), then sell it for big bucks! 
I voted for neither. I know how naive that makes me, to actually have voted for someone I believed in rather than picking from one of the only two parties that was going to win. But it doesn’t make your smug assumption any less idiotic.
Beyond naive, it makes you idiotic ,particularly after having four years to consider what happened in 2000. You vote for your love candidate in the primaries, and if he/she doesn’t get advanced to the final two, voting for a third party candidate in the finals tends to help the candidate that is furthest from your views. I’m sure people have tried to explain it before, while you hold your hands over your ears and scream “lalalalalalal”. Without Ralph Nader, Bush would not be President. (And perhaps without Perot, Clinton would not have been president.)
Do you know why Ralph Nader is going to be cremated and his ashes scattered after he dies? Because if he were buried there would be an eternal line of people waiting in line to piss on his grave.
Wild exaggeration. Maybe 20 million. Tops.
“Don’t vote for the candidate you actually support! There are two options and two options only, and if you try to change things you’re naive.”
Civic virtue at its finest, boy howdy.
Well, let’s take a look at what you actually said:
(For those of us who can actually read, of course, it is after year one since the **re-**election, just as the OP stated.)
So the OP made four specific criticisms of Bush’s performance (five if you count the third sentence as two criticisms), one of which was the body count of US soldiers.
You responded to a different one (or two) of those criticisms, and then said "As for the rest—neener neener neener."
Sure sounds like you’re gleefully flipping off the loss of two thousand American lives. I’m perfectly willing to believe that that’s not what you actually meant (in fact, I’d be pretty horrified if it was what you actually meant), but in that case you did a fairly piss-poor job of expressing your meaning.
I quite take your point, Finn, but respectfully disagree. One’s civic duty compels one to choose, just so. And Mr. Nader did, indeed, represent some principles that I am wholly in agreement with.
But he could not win. And therefore, the hard fact was that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. That was a bridge too far. Had he thrown his support to Gore, having made his point! our recent history might well have been written differently, and with a less sanguinary ink.
If thats the case, then the “you” in my message would be the people you were “spoofing”. Relieved to hear it was intended as a spoof.
Sure he was. It was written that way because he meant it that way.
How many were already dead by November 2004? It was over a thousand by then, wasn’t it? Shodan knew what he was voting for. Chickenhawks want this; sending soldiers overseas to kill and be killed is the entire point. War makes it easier to win elections and other political points; how many Presidents have failed to be re-elected during a war? None, by my count,
The post was clumsily written, and friend Shodan owns up to that. His actual views offer plentiful targets for scorn and derision, there is no good reason to latch on to a faux post for more of the same. Not guilty, by reason of ooopsy!
Yes and no.
I remember when Kucinich was asked if he was electable, he responded “I am if you vote for me.”
Too often people do not do what is right because they worry what everybody else will do. If everybody voted their conscience, maybe it wouldn’t be a forgone conclusion that there were only two choices.
And sometimes, the only message someone can send with their vote is “none of the above.”
Although, as a caveat: yes, depending on one’s individual choices, maybe it is worth it to vote for someone they do not support in order to defeat someone else they do not support. But I’d say that’s an individual choice. If someone, in their heart of hearts, can not vote for either major candidate and instead can only support a minor candidate, then I cannot fault them for doing what they believe is right.
Oh, and, you don’t have to worry about stating that disagreement is respectful. You’re an honorable gent, and I expect to have disagreements with people over issues all the time, especially on the Dope. Unless and untill you preface your remarks to me with “Listen asshole…” I’ll assume we’re being civil 
The real humor will be when this is posted by a Republican about a Democratic president. It will happen, because party shills on either side of the aisle are the same. Same stories, same complaints, same excuses, same backpedaling, same frothing bullshit. Every year, the idea of political “debate” becomes more and more laughable. There is no debate. There is just a pack of monkeys flinging feces back and forth, while those in power do their best to see their monkeys have the most feces to fling.
Lyndon Johnson, 1968, dropped out during primaries when he saw he’d lose in November. Harry Truman, 1952, didn’t even try.
Fortunately, it doesn’t so much matter here in the Pit. I just debate here because I’ll debate anywhere.
But such a line would never end, as it would fill up faster than the one peeing could finish. Even if folks gathered in a circle (let’s say 10), the line would continue growing faster than the peeing people could finish.
I take this from the old Ripley’s Believe It Or Rot that you could never March the world’s population past one point 10 abreast because the population is growing at a faster rate.