[mikegunner]

Republicans will enjoy this joke, Democrats will hate it:

Mike

While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 70-year-old Massachusetts business tycoon (whose hand had been caught in a fence while working at his country home), a doctor and the old man were talking about Senator John Kerry possibly being in the White House one day.

The tycoon said, "Well, ya know, Kerry is a 'post turtle'." Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was. The old man said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor stupid b*st*rd get down.

 

[SpecialEd]

And so it goes...

The first time I heard that joke it was about George W. No matter who the object is it's still a great one!

Ed

 

[mikegunner]

Ed,

Sad thing is --- it is true about both sides!!! On the highest levels of the US political system, you can put them all into a bag, shake it up and I would defy you to identify what came out (Meaning , they are all the same!). I now consider myself to be more of a civil libertarian --- we need to shrink government, take a little taxes to run what we do need, and then just leave the people ALONE!! In the election, I will only vote for George W. because I deem him to be the lesser of the 3 evils running.

Mike

 

[Richard Jefferies]

Y'know, Mike, that emphasizes a continual problem I have with voting.

A vote for the lesser of (X) evils is still a vote for evil.
The "good" candidates won't garner more than 1/2 to 1% of the vote, and a vote for them is a "wasted" vote.
The system is so corrupt that there is a strong temptation to not vote at all because it just validates the corruption.
To not vote is to "waste" a vote.

What is a true waste of a vote; to not cast it at all, or to cast it for a good candidate that has no chance of winning? Is one really better than the other? Is it better to vote for a known evil, even if it is "lesser?"

Why, oh why can't there be a good candidate with an actual chance of winning?

I can't help but remember the saying, "If God intended us to vote, He would have given us real candidates." I can't help but think it should be added "with a chance of winning."

It's a sad but true fact: 95% of the population is scared to death of true freedom, and they vote that way.

[/rant off]

 

[SpecialEd]

As Winston Churchill said...

"Democracy is the worst form of government there is... except for all the rest!"

Or something like that.

Ed

 

[Richard Jefferies]

True, Ed....but then, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional democratic republic.

I do like one thing about the original Greek democracy....any free citizen could propose a law, as long as that citizen was willing to stand with his head in a noose while the law was debated, and be prepared to be hung if the proposed law was defeated.