portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

actions & protests | government | political theory oregon elections 2004

Drop the party, be independent

Voting a straight party ticket is not the answer to our problems
My conservative mother proudly "splits the ticket" to show her support for the candidate, not the party of her choice. I think this is wise. I've been seeing lots of "Vote Democrat" signs around town and it made me realize how misguided that suggestion is. I bet if John McCain were running instead of Bush, many conservative Democrats would vote for him, probably thousands more than voted for Bush in 2000. If Kuccinich were running, many Greens would vote for him. Many are no doubt going to support Nader. Why do we slavishly adhere to party politics? I would much rather someone in congress voted their conscience, not their party's. If you are going to vote a straight Democratic ticket, does that mean you are going to vote for Bill Bradbury for Secretary of State again? Or Ron Wyden? Do you really want a Secretary of State who decides to throw out 3,000 Nader signatures because the pages were not in numerical order? Even though the petitioners followed the procedure given to them by the Secretary's office. Do you really want a Secretary of State who rejected thousands of signatures that the county election officials had already verified as legitimate? Do we smell something fishy here? If this could happen to the Nader campaign, it could happen to anyone. Let's face it, Democrat or Republican, we're in for endless war, unfair trade laws, vote scams, even weapons in bloody space! If Greens were in Congress, would it really matter when the powerful majority, owned and operated by Exxon Mobil and Haliburton, are running the show? We need more of our representatives to speak their own truth. Politics is a lot more fun the few times that actually happens. I say it's high time to announce our independence from party politics, and vote the candidate, not the party.
Independent 06.Sep.2004 19:59


I already renounced the major 2 parties and urge others to do so. Vote your conscience is excellent advise. If more people would do that, we'd have PEOPLE representatives in congress, not CORPORATE representatives. Quit worrying what will happen "if." When you say the urgency is too high a price today, and maybe you'll vote your conscience next time, I say that "next time" will not happen. The time is NOW!

Spot On! 06.Sep.2004 20:07


Short but Sweet.

agree! 06.Sep.2004 21:26


aren't you a little tired of hearing 'anybody but Bush?" i've always been NP (no party) and will always be. it's all the same party anyway, and not a party that i would want to attend.

this doesn't make any damn sense 06.Sep.2004 21:51


This only seems to make sense if you're so confused about the world that you're torn BETWEEN the Dems and Repubs. They both have good points! (No they don't.) If you think the Dems are significantly less bad, vote Dem. If you think they're both awful, don't vote for either one. Voting Republican is incomprehensibly irresponsible.

a plague on both their houses 06.Sep.2004 22:17


I've always been registered independant out of dissatisfaction over the relentlessly competitive nature of the two parties between each other. They waste so much time fighting between each other rather than cooperating together towards mutually beneficial objectives. This is so inefficient. Independant voters keep them guessing.

No parties 06.Sep.2004 22:33

George Bender

I would like to see political parties abolished, since they've become mostly meaningless, and all elections be nonpartisan. But under the present rules it's like pulling teeth to get an independent candidate, such as Ralph Nader, on the ballot. So, reluctantly, I think we need to start a progressive party in Oregon. Then the question would be, how do you keep it from being taken over by New Age leftists who just want everyone to be nice?

There's a big difference 06.Sep.2004 23:51


Imagine where we would be now if Clinton were President, in regards to aggression against other countries. Vote Democrat. Get back the Senate and House and you'll see changes so fast your head will spin. There are no checks and balances because the supreme court is stacked. It's time for the poor reptiles to bite. (alluding to a letter written by Gouverneur Morris) He wrote the US Constitution.

Are you kidding? 07.Sep.2004 00:04


Do you know how many Iraqis died under the "sanctions" of the Clinton admin? The bombings?

Is that not agression?

What about Kosovo?
East Timor?

oh, yes. Clinton's record is sterling....

Democrats are genocidal maniacs too 07.Sep.2004 01:09


"Imagine where we would be now if Clinton were President, in regards to aggression against other countries."

Yes. Let's...

Clinton-Gore dispatched troops around the world far more than any other modern administration. Even before launching the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, Clinton sent U.S. forces into combat situations 46 times. This compares to only 26 times for Presidents Ford (4), Carter (1), Reagan (14) and Bush (7) combined.* Clinton, the one-time anti—Vietnam War protester, continued Bush's 1992 invasion of Somalia, invaded Haiti in 1994, bombed Serbia in 1995 and 1999, Sudan and Afghanistan in 1997, and Iraq almost continuously throughout his administration. To force North Korea into negotiations, Clinton threatened in 1994 a war that could have provoked a nuclear conflict. In 1995, the U.S. aided its Croatian ally in the ethnic cleansing of more than 170,000 Serbs. And it has remained the main enforcer of genocidal sanctions on Iraq, which have killed more than 1.5 million Iraqis since 1990. In June 2000, the Congress passed the administration's request for $1.3 billion in aid to the Colombian military.

The administration's support for sanctions in Iraq and for the death squads in Colombia belied all of its talk about establishing a foreign policy based on human rights. But this had been clear from the start. After denouncing the Bush administration for ordering the forcible repatriation of Haitians fleeing persecution from their country, Clinton did an about face. Bush's policy became Clinton's policy. Blasting Bush for "coddling dictators" in China, Clinton in 1994 removed any human rights considerations from U.S.-China trade. Clinton supported the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia to the bitter end in 1998. And his administration in 1997 lifted the ban on weapons sales to Latin American governments, including present and future military regimes. Given this record, it should come as no surprise that Clinton's "humanitarian" war against Yugoslavia in 1999 produced a catastrophe for ordinary Serbs and Kosovar Albanians alike. "If there is a Clinton Doctrine-an innovation by the present administration in the conduct of foreign policy-it is this: punishing the innocent in order to express indignation at the guilty," wrote one establishment critic of the NATO war.**

* Robert L. Borosage, "Money Talks: The Implications of U.S. Budget Priorities," in Martha Honey and Tom Barry, eds., Global Focus (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000), p. 12. These figures count the number of times presidents are required, under the 1973 War Powers Act, to notify Congress when they send troops abroad to face "imminent hostilities."

** Michael Mandelbaum, "A Perfect Failure: NATO's War Against Yugoslavia," Foreign Affairs 78 (5), (September/October 1999): pp. 6—7.

Eight Years of Clinton-Gore: The Price of Lesser-Evilism:

Fuck democrats. Democrat presidents brought the US into WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, nuked Japan twice, and risked nuclear war with Russia in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. This is an incomplete list. You get the idea. If you are anti-war, there is NO WAY you can vote either remocrat or republican.

This is something we all agree on 07.Sep.2004 07:01


But one things for sure, we need Bush out.

One pet idea of mine is election reform, something like allowing everybody $20 or something worth of voice to give to your cadidate or pool into your favorite 527.

The two party thing is not working.

Parties have GOT to GO! 07.Sep.2004 09:21


I agree with George Bender. Parties, in there current form, must be abolished. If there are parties, there should plenty of them, and they should be LOOSELY organized and around for coalition efforts. They should be parties that come and go as necessary to build coalitions, and not entrenched power structures that prohibit political access to the many.

This is made especially clear considering Bill Bradbury's unholy rejection of Nader petitions out of his warped party loyalty, with little respect of overall democratic principles. Let me say this again, there are elected officials more concerned with serving their party, than the people. Their party allegiance is greater than their allegiance to our democracy.

The tyranny of the DUOPOLY shows just the insane danger that parties (especially major parties) pose to democracy, and I believe now more than ever that the first step that Americans must take to regain some semblance of a democracy is to disavow their party loyalty and help to put an end to the current corrupt-to-the-core party system.

Suspicious of those who promote DIVIDE and Conquer 07.Sep.2004 09:34


"Fuck democrats. Democrat presidents brought the US into WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, nuked Japan twice, and risked nuclear war with Russia in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. This is an incomplete list. You get the idea. If you are anti-war, there is NO WAY you can vote either remocrat or republican".

It was a Texas democrat that escalated a war in vietnam. Kennedy was ready to get out right before he was killed. Nixon prolonged it for years but finally the end came. Johnson was a big egoed Texan. Pathologically incapable of "losing" the war.

We can't be divided this election and I am beginning to be suspicious of anyone that suggests we don't unite to get the FASCISTS OUT'

You can't vote the fascists out 07.Sep.2004 09:53


As Skull and Bones investigator Anthony Sutton stated, "you are not going to vote these guys out". Their tentacles run too deep. But there is power in knowledge and the more we have, the less they can continue to pull the wool over our eyes. I think the extreme anger towards Bush is playing into their hands. As everyone is so focused on their hatred and fear of Bush, the so called "other side" is busy perpetuating their agenda. Has the military industrial complex taken a hit from all this Bush-bashing? Will the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan cease? Is there any chance Iran or Syria won't be in their cross hairs during this Anybody But Bush sing song? We should focus on the inequities foisted on us right here in our own communities. Check out this Albany op ed below. These kind of letters are more useful in helping to shine a light on the undemocratic dealings of the Democratic Party and our electoral system. Sure Bush is the enemy, but he is being aided and abetted every single day by the so called opposing side.

Join the Green Party 07.Sep.2004 10:05

Brian Setzler

The Green Party is part of an international movement based on some simple, progressive principles:

1. Peace and non-violence
2. Personal and societal responsibility
3. Grassroots democracy
4. Ecological Wisdom

Here in Oregon, the Pacific Green Party is less than a decade old, first gaining ballot access for the '96 election.

We don't take corporate money. Support the Green Party. Vote Green. Be Green.

arbusto combusto 07.Sep.2004 10:23

commander in queef

Tree makes an excellent point. We must remove the more or less burgeoning fascist elements from our governement. A vast majority of people voting in every state for Nader would be a good start. But clearly that is not likely to happen as Nader was unsuccessful in getting on the ballots of every state. Also a fair amount of "thinking" liberal democrats believe there to be a connection between the Nader campaign and right wing/fundamentalist groups, in part because they have been giving Nader money and doing phone outreach as well. Whether or not the Nader camp has accepted or welcomed these unsolicited "gifts" is irrelevant. He's been branded, and alot of left leaning people think he's a loon.
I don't. I want to vote for the guy. I have voted for him in every presidential election I've been eligible to vote in .
But my vote will most likely go to Kerry, bones and all.
He's not my first choice or my third choice. Nevertheless he does represent a choice. Anyone who suggests that he does not has been suckling at the cloying teet of revolutionary ideation too long. Getting a presidential administration, a congress and senate composed of thinkers like Nader, Kucinich, and even Chomsky will take time. Making sure that at least the executive branch will uphold and honor the democratic values which would make such enlightned legislative bodies possible requires a vote for the democratic presidential candidate this year.
In the mean time the green party can mature and gain more membership and influence.

Kerry is no choice at all 07.Sep.2004 10:59


Kerry is NO choice whatsoever. What's the difference? That he "served in Vietnam"?????
That he's gonna "try" to get us out of Iraq???? What does "try" mean, anyways? What kind of exit strategy is that? That he's going to help INSURE people by subsidizing businesses for their insurance costs? Hey, John -- why not universal health care? And that he's gonna sign lots of free trade agreements in order to screw over workers and the environment, just like Bush? No, thank you!

I am NOT voting for Kerry, and I don't care if Bush gets in either. The evil empire is the duopoly, not just the Bush family.

If Kerry gets in, dems will have to have him run in 4 years, too. And he's still going to be a moderate imperialist, because he'll have to beat another evil republican and win the "swing voters". Because, of course, in 4 years Jeb might run in 4 years and "Anybody but Jeb" (meaning that by any means necessary....)

and the dems will whine and pout that we have to be ABB, YET AGAIN (because we can't let those evil, awful, fascist Bushes in office, can we?) See this sort of back-and-forth is NEVER going to stop unless people simply put their foot down and stop voting for the duopoly.

Besides (and I know many feel the same way) the creeping fascism is much more apparent to me in the Democratic Party right now anyways considering all the monkey business at Bill Bradbury's office with the Nader petitions. IT's happening all over the country, too. The Republicans aren't the only fascists in town.

Maybe if Bush gets in, the democrats AND republicans will wake up and start impeachment hearings like they ought to have, already. If Bush doesnt' get in, it will be whitewashed by Kerry, Bush's bonesbrother.

So, I'm voting for Nader (who supports impeachment) and anyone willing to start impeachement hearings against Bush. If Bush is really bad, he should be impeached. That's what impeachment is there for.

piles of... 07.Sep.2004 11:41


come on everyone we all know democrats, republicans, greens, independents,etc....is the same old shit just different piles of it the stinky stuff.

We're all for impeachment-the votes aren't there 07.Sep.2004 11:43


to end the duopoly

The house of representatives in Washington DC has too many republicans. If we had enough democrats Bush would be impeached. It has to pass the House for impeachment. That's why they could impeach Clinton. We are losing checks and balances. Majority of rightwingers in house, senate, supreme court and of course the white house. It is up to us to get the white house back and the house and the senate. Vote democratic. Not green, not lib, not socialist. DEMOCRAT

sorry 07.Sep.2004 11:52


Socialist and Green for house and senate is OK. Just vote for Kerry.

lather 07.Sep.2004 13:07

commander in queef

Lather, lather, lather.
"Kerry is NO choice whatsoever. What's the difference? That he "served in Vietnam"????? "
Yes. And when he came home he testified before congress about atrocities being commited by US troops. He was a part of Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, marching with them and occasionally speaking on their behalf.

"I am NOT voting for Kerry, and I don't care if Bush gets in either."
Oh, so you don't care if more brain damaged fundamentalist christian -ists are nominated and confirmed to the benches of this nation's highest courts.
You don't care that millions of more acres of protected land gets leased out by the bush crony run Bureau of Land Management to oil prospectors.
You don't care that Cheney's company will continue to reap profits in the billions as the war rages on.
You don't care about saving social security and preventing the debt burden from being too overwherlming on today's and tomorrow's yourg workers.
You don't care that the supreme court is just a shot away from stripping American women of reproductive rights.

If you don't care that bush may get re-selected then you don't understand the trouble we are in .

Kennedy almost started a nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis 07.Sep.2004 13:55


"Kennedy was ready to get out [of Vietnam] right before he was killed."

That's a funny one. And completely untrue. He escalated the war throughout his whole presidency, sending more and more troops the whole time. Where did you get your information? An Oliver Stone film? Provide evidence please.

"Oh, so you don't care if more brain damaged fundamentalist christian -ists are nominated and confirmed to the benches of this nation's highest courts."

You mean like Scalia? The antic-hociue zealot whose nomination Kerry confirmed? Kerry has openly stated that he will do so again.

"You don't care that millions of more acres of protected land gets leased out by the bush crony run Bureau of Land Management to oil prospectors."

You mean like what happened under Kerry's fellow DLCer Clinton, opening up "protected" land for mining and timbering?

"You don't care that the supreme court is just a shot away from stripping American women of reproductive rights."

Kerry, a Catholic who formerly wanted to become a priest, is personally against abortion (despite his not living in a female body) and claims only to respect Roe v. Wade only because it is now on the books. When the tid eturns, watch kerry turn with it.

"You don't care about saving social security and preventing the debt burden from being too overwherlming on today's and tomorrow's yourg workers."

Neither does Kerry, who will undoubtedly brutally slash social spending in order to relieve the deficit, just as Clinton did. Clinton also made promises he wouldn't. then he got elected.

"You don't care that Cheney's company will continue to reap profits in the billions as the war rages on."

Kerry will provide profits in the hundreds of billions to a variety of corporations that has helped him politically, just as Clinton and Bush did before him.

Perhaps you should spend less time on johnkerry.com and more time researching FACTS and VOTING RECORDSin a variety of sources?

You don't understand the deep schitt we are in either way. Kerry doesn't think Bush has gone far enough with the war on terror, and has laready threatened Iran, Venezuela, and N Korea. Nuclear war anyone?

I'm not voting Duopoly, no way! 07.Sep.2004 14:31


I don't want Bush elected anymore than I want KERRY elected but I don't care to waste my vote on either of them. They are both imperialist jerks, and they'll both do damage, either way.

Yes, I'm well aware of what has occured in the last 4 years. Only, I didn't see many democrats doing too damn much to stop it. Where I was living, I wrote to my senators (both democrats) and my congressman (democrat) asking them to oppose the war. You know what? I got the same stupid form letters back again and againt that reiterated BUSH'S LIES (and c'mon...they all knew they were lies) and propaganda. Why do democrats support Bush's lies and propaganda? Why haven't they brought impeachement? Maybe, they corporatist democrats are helping out their corporatist republican buddies.

Is the beloved Kerry questioning Bush on anything of significance? challenging him? I haven't heard it. The democratic convention was one big military-industrial love fest.

Kerry can't use his Vietnam service/war opposition (funny he's not opposing this war, hmmmm????) is more of a way to AVOID REAL AND CURRENT issues. It's got alot of people ignorantly wasting their energy on irrelevant matters INSTEAD of things like universal health care, Iraq, WTO, free trade, job loss, minimum wages, the environment, genetically modified foods, etc., etc. The culture war is there to play people against eachother on IRRELEVANT ISSUES while the powers-that-be enforce fascist control over people. The corporate media and Duopolistic outlets encourages these sorts of distractions.

Furthermore, what I want least is the democratic party using Bush as a way to sneak through corrupt, imperialist, corporatist, war supporting, free trade supporting, skull and bones, elite aristocratic, WTO loving candidates who will do the same sorts of damage as republicans (but have ignorant "leftists"'s eyes closed cuz they have so much faith in "liberals" and the corrupt democratic party). Look how much damage Clinton got through, and ignorant democrats still adore his free-trade imperialistic, welfare reforming, corporatist a**.

NO WAY! Bush is dangerous. Kerry is dangerous. Won't vote for either.


who said I spent any time @ johnkerry.com ? 07.Sep.2004 15:21

commander in queef

First of all I don't need anybody's political machine to tell me what to think and what I already know. George W. Bush- that evil beady-eyed, mass murdering moron must be stopped from serving a second term. If anybody needs a reason why this must be so, just search your conscience. Unfortunately the only way this is to be accomplished is to elect Kerry. At the rate we're going we won't have a truly progressive, green or radically enlightened government for years and years. Allowing an administration like Chimpy's to remain in power any longer by not voting for someone who is at the very least an intellectual with a soul, will prolong the arrival of such a government.
Ralph is good. Ralph is great. But Ralph will not get more than 3 million votes. Cobb and company don't have the numbers either.
The altenative is to skulk and not vote, or vote for whatever AIDS-denying demagogue Gringo says is o.k..
Right, Mr. Stars?

What's wrong with this picture? 07.Sep.2004 15:27

Hal E. Burton

I'm so happy in my fantasy world. I'm going to make an important statement with MY vote. The nation WILL hear my mighty roar!

Who cares about the rules? About electoral colleges, Supreme Court justices and what the actual outcome will be?

I'll know that I voted the right way, and if my failure to compromise causes me pain later on, I can always come back to IndyMedia and complain about how badly things are going for me.

And THAT makes me fee important, TOO!

Smearing Nader 07.Sep.2004 16:28

George Bender

"Also a fair amount of "thinking" liberal democrats believe there to be a connection between the Nader campaign and right wing/fundamentalist groups, in part because they have been giving Nader money and doing phone outreach as well."

Well first of all, "thinking liberal Democrats" is an oxymoron.

Second, this smear has been debunked many times on this website. Unfortunately, Democrats don't read. One more time:

Anyone has a right to contribute money, under our unfortunate system, to any candidate, as long as they stay within the limits. It costs money to run a political campaign. It is unfair to expect Nader to reject any legal contribution. Only about 4 percent of his campaign money has come from Republicans, many of whom have worked with him on issues before, went to school with him, agree with him on some of the issues (real conservatives are unhappy with Bush), etc. In 2000 about 25 percent of Nader's votes came from Republicans. Many people vote outside their party. Republicans have also contributed large amounts of money to the Democrats, much more than they've given to Nader. The rich typically contribute to both major parties, covering their bets.

The Nader campaign has gone after conservative votes, which they have every right to do. They have not made any deals with Republican organizations to contribute or gather petition signatures for them. They have no control over what the Republicans do. In Michigan they have accepted Republican-gathered petition signatures to get on the ballot, which I believe we have a right to do, considering the enormous effort and dirty tricks Democrats have put into keeping Nader off the ballot, and considering how unfair the requirements are in many states to get on the ballot.

And all of this is a pointless distraction from the issues, which is what you should be paying attention to. It would really pay you not to let your attention be diverted to what the establishment and their pet news media want you to pay attention to. It's a game to keep you powerless.

fuck the green party 07.Sep.2004 16:42


The green party is run by a small group of people who wantonly break party bylaws over a few beers at McMenamins, citing "interpretation" as a justification for doing so. They are yet another example of how hierarchical organizations end up focusing the power of many into the hands of a few who then proceed to exclude anyone outside their elitist circle from the decision-making process. Fuck parties, fuck the state, fuck the police, fuck fuckety fuckety shit fuck fuck.

votes are not counted nationally - too much fraud 07.Sep.2004 18:11


As long as there are e-voting machines being used, and good ole voter roll vote fraud a la Jeb Bush, your vote is for naught. 2000 selection proved this. 2004 will be the same. CIQ, you misunderstand if you think anyone should be voted for.

can you get ANYTHING straight, CIQ? I do not "deny" AIDS, although that is a nice distraction for you to mention. It is HIV that still has no proven link to AIDS whatsoever:

That is not the point of this thread (but thanks for the mention). The point is that even IF your vote counts (which it will not), then you are voting for a DLC candidate. the last DLC candidate was responsible for the deaths of over 1.8 million civilians, all told. Way to go Clinton! Way to kill kids, democrats! The W death toll is not nearly that high, even if you half Clinton's body count. So your morally bankrupt lesser-evilism isn't even well informed, let alone containing any integrity.

I don't skulk. I act outside the corrupt system. Because it is the system, not tlking heads who represent it, which does the real harm. CIQ, you are swallowing the corporate media punditocracy's BS hook line and sinker. You are a sucker. Don't say nobody told you.

Internet Tough Guy of the Year - gringo stars 07.Sep.2004 20:06

commander in queef

Don't vote when its my constitutional right and duty as an american to do so?
The only thing I've swallowed enough of is cynical tripe from the Undisputed Internet Tough Guy of the Year and Champeen of Ad Hominem attacks, Gringo Stars.
Don't Vote. Cynical nonsense.

thanks for the ad hominem, CIQ 07.Sep.2004 21:25


VOTING is cynical nonsense. A non-action that gets you off the hook for another couple years, and it rubberstamps the BS that goes on in your name. It's why Australia made not voting illegal.

I vote when my vote actually gets counted, lik ein local elections. But in national elections? With Florida under Jeb Bush's thumb and several states with no paper trail for recounting because they use fraudulent e-voting machines? Less than useless to vote nationally. Knock yourself out, if you want to, tough guy. Waste hours and hours of your life campaigning for a genocidal maniac who you errouneously consider better than the other genocidal maniac, despite the fact that there is no way to make sure of the vote count.

Gringo Stars What a downer 07.Sep.2004 21:30


What are you exactly doing outside "the corrupt system" because as I see all you are doing is bitching about how bad the system is. Why don't you come back to portland indymedia when you have actively changed the system because I don't think bitching about it counts.

hey, "Bill" - 07.Sep.2004 21:40


what - in detail, exactly and precisely - have *YOU* done to "actively change the system" (whatever that means)?

message for 'ciq' 07.Sep.2004 21:50

one up man

"Don't vote when its my constitutional right and duty as an american to do so?"

read and heed well, 'ciq':

>>>>>Your "vote" in the American pResidential Selection means absolutely NOTHING.<<<<<

(if you disagree with this statement/me/GRINGO or it just plain irks you, then the burden of proof to the contrary lies with you. PROVE to us that your individual vote in the pResidential Selection is somehow "counted", or means anything at all, especially in light of Nov. 2000. personally, I'd diverge from GRINGO in that I do happen to believe that votes in regional/local elections e.g. the PDX Mayor race actually do achieve incremental change - but voting in the pResidential Selection has long been utterly meaningless.)

Cynicism is the lack of hope 07.Sep.2004 22:38

Commander in Queef

If you lack any hope in the prospect of democracy, one person one vote, then you are a cynic. I am one of millions, so yes my vote is relatively insignificant. But if you put all those millions together do you know what you get? An electorate. Ultimately it is the multitutdes which make up the electorate who get to decide who controls the executive branch of government. There is no amount of apathy which is going to make any branch of government go away, especially the one which is helmed by the president. Also it is such a waste not to vote when millions of other people who live under much more repressive regimes around the world have no power to express themselves peacefully in a political manner. If you don't see it as a responsibility, no matter who you vote for, then there is nothing more I can say to prove to you that it doesn't mean "absolutely nothing".

And, Mr. Stars, don't call me a tough guy. I've seen you bitch slap people on indymedia countless times. We all know who the bruiser is.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush 07.Sep.2004 23:30


Vote for my cat. She only kills what she can eat.

The truth hurts 07.Sep.2004 23:32


...so don't blame the messenger, CIQ. I don't lack hope, but I don't entertain fantasies. RIGHT NOW voting in national elections is absurd and meaningless. Don't blame me just because you got duped. People under oppressive regimes have something in common with voters in national elections in the US; their vote means nothing. The difference between the US and those other repressive regimes is that here in the US, there is an illusion that persists that we are a functioning democracy. We are not. We are a plutocracy. Not all activism is broadcast online, as well it shouldn't. But things like doing research and posting findings: that is something appropriately done online.

Bill, of course all you see is me bitching on Indymedia. Identifying problems and focusing energy is what is done on Indymedia. No real activism other than information exchange and networking happens here. What you call "bitching" others call democracy, which has been defined as being distrustful of anyone who has power over you. Do I harsh your mellow dude? Am I a downer? Then go watch the boob tube for your entertainment. On TV there's plenty of false hope in a corrupt electoral system, a trillion dollar evangelism that would make any faith healer jealous. Pray to Diebold and be SAVED, amen! All ye must do is vote and ye shall be BLESSED, amen.

I think... 08.Sep.2004 13:09


...I must be in love with Chlamydia. I agree, in every parties, the shit floats to the top. All run by egos, few are willing to step back to et others speak.