So, I got my ballot today...

[QueenAdrock]

Options available:

1. Obama/Biden
2. McCain/Palin
3. Barr/Root
4. Write-In ___________

I was surprised to not see Nader there, but apparently he's not an option in 5 states (including North Carolina). I thought McKinney would also get on the ballot, but she's not there. I can't find much information about what states she's on the ballot (if any), but I'm gonna keep looking.

Interesting though, because the only alternative option to the two main parties (other than writing in) is the libertarian candidate. Since libertarians tend to draw from the Republican base, I'm interested to see how it'll affect McCain in North Carolina...not to mention Georgia and Indiana, which are also tighter races with only Bob Barr as an alternative.

[travesty]

Queen are you an NC resident? Thought you were in MD.

Barr has done a decent job of getting on the ballot in most states though he has been facing some troubles in PA thanks to McCain. Anyhow, it would be great if all legitmate candidates were able to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Eerven better would be if they were all invited to the debates....so go here (http://opendebates.org/yourrole/petition/) and sign a petition to have them all included.

I don't know how much effect Barr will have in NC (though I am trying) but I am pretty sure he is going to cause some problems in his home state of Georgia where he is polling really well.

[jennyb]

So you're circling number 2, right? ;)

[ToucanSpam]

I fucking dare you to vote McCain.

[RobMoney$]

I was surprised to not see Nader there, but apparently he's not an option in 5 states (including North Carolina). I thought McKinney would also get on the ballot, but she's not there. I can't find much information about what states she's on the ballot (if any), but I'm gonna keep looking.

Interesting though, because the only alternative option to the two main parties (other than writing in) is the libertarian candidate. Since libertarians tend to draw from the Republican base, I'm interested to see how it'll affect McCain in North Carolina...not to mention Georgia and Indiana, which are also tighter races with only Bob Barr as an alternative.

You're voting for Obama, right? Then seriously, why the hell would you give a flying fuck what other "candidates" were on the ballot?

I mean let's include Fred Flintstone and Al Bundy on the Ballot while were at it. I bet they'd both get as many votes as any of these third party people.

Let's invite Charlie Manson to the debates. He wanted to run the country didn't he? His opinions should be heard.


Talk about out of touch with society, Barr, McKinney, Nader, Paul, Al Bundy, Ferris Buehler...as if any of these people actually have a legitimate chance to win? ROTFL. What's the point?

I wish I had the time to worry about such trivial shit as making sure such people are included.
The last thing the American people need is a Presidential debate being clogged up with a bunch of irrelevant opinions that will only prevent the candidates with a real chance from being heard. People are going to tune in to hear what Obama and McCain have to say, not to hear Ron Paul's opinion on legalizing weed.
We heard Paul's opinions during the primaries, the people voted against him. We don't need to hear from him again. Same goes for Nader, imagine that weirdo being in charge of handling Iraq? No thanks.

[Documad]

I think what she was getting at is that a third party could pull enough votes to change the race in a particular state. Like with Nader/Gore/W in FL in 2000.

It's been a factor in my state in recent elections. It may be a factor in our senate race this year because there is a stronger than usual third party candidate who is likely to pull more votes from the democrat than from the republican.

[RobMoney$]

I personally can't stand when that happens and think third party candidates should be eliminated from the ballot for just that reason.
To think Nader could be to blame for Bush being elected in 2000 is pretty disheartening.

why would anyone want to see something similar happen again?

Maybe we could institute some sort of pre-election nomination, where all the minority parties could participate and the final two parties could be chosen from that to face off for the final election?

[kaiser soze]

I'm going to make a bumper sticker

Palin....pretty much a third party vote

[travesty]

I personally can't stand when that happens and think third party candidates should be eliminated from the ballot for just that reason.
To think Nader could be to blame for Bush being elected in 2000 is pretty disheartening.

why would anyone want to see something similar happen again?

Maybe we could institute some sort of pre-election nomination, where all the minority parties could participate and the final two parties could be chosen from that to face off for the final election?

If the candidate you want to vote for is so great, you shouldn't care who else is on the ballot. The fact is that it is incredibly difficult just to get on a ballot in most states. It takes a lot of signatures and hard work crossing T's and dotting I's thanks to all of the red tape imposed by the major parties. Just getting on the ballot means that there are thousands of people supporting that candidate in each state.

If you think that the real voice of America can be heard through the ideas of only two candidates, I think that you are very simple minded. If that is the case why aren't there only two car makers, or two restaurant chains. I have never heard anyone say that they are beeing given TOO MUCH choice but I guess there is a first for everything. If you need someone else to bring every decision you make down to an A or B choice then let me be the first;

RobMoney You can have
A) The helmet, tineless fork and no-spill sippy cup
OR
B) Padded room, straight jacket and prozac

[Documad]

Maybe we could institute some sort of pre-election nomination, where all the minority parties could participate and the final two parties could be chosen from that to face off for the final election?

We sort of do that in my state primaries, but only for offices that have no party designation, like sheriff and judge.

On the other hand, my state elected a third party governor and one could argue that he was the best candidate that year (even though no one knew that at the time).

[QueenAdrock]

Queen are you an NC resident? Thought you were in MD.

Born and raised in MD, but my official residence in the states is with my parents in North Carolina. Damn happy about it too, because it's a dead heat there.

You're voting for Obama, right? Then seriously, why the hell would you give a flying fuck what other "candidates" were on the ballot?

I'm saying I'm interested in finding out why they weren't on it, and whether it'll have an effect on the outcomes. Since I was under the impression that they were going to be on it, and then found out that they were not, I was a bit confused. When I see things that I don't expect in this world, I have a tendency to question why it is so. It's not that hard a concept.

Anyways, I'm all for third party candidates. I'm a Democrat and believe in their platform, but you know what, not everyone's like me and I realize that. I'm not even going to argue with your opinion on that though, because arguing against narrow-mindedness an exercise in futility.

[DroppinScience]

If the candidate you want to vote for is so great, you shouldn't care who else is on the ballot. The fact is that it is incredibly difficult just to get on a ballot in most states. It takes a lot of signatures and hard work crossing T's and dotting I's thanks to all of the red tape imposed by the major parties.

You are 100% right. Whether you're Democrat or Republican, you shouldn't feel "threatened" by any third party candidate. It just means you have to spend some time convincing the electorate you are better than all the rest. Snubbing out other voices just means that everyone loses.

[RobMoney$]

If the candidate you want to vote for is so great, you shouldn't care who else is on the ballot. The fact is that it is incredibly difficult just to get on a ballot in most states. It takes a lot of signatures and hard work crossing T's and dotting I's thanks to all of the red tape imposed by the major parties. Just getting on the ballot means that there are thousands of people supporting that candidate in each state.

If you think that the real voice of America can be heard through the ideas of only two candidates, I think that you are very simple minded. If that is the case why aren't there only two car makers, or two restaurant chains. I have never heard anyone say that they are beeing given TOO MUCH choice but I guess there is a first for everything. If you need someone else to bring every decision you make down to an A or B choice then let me be the first;

When you go to buy a car, a relatively intelligent mind will try to narrow down the decision from a dozen cars down to the final two or three, and then compare them and make the final decision on which car is best for them.
Maybe you just aren't relatively intelligent, huh. Maybe you don't understand the process of elimantion?

When you consider the difficulties we've had in determining who people voted for on a CHAD when there are only two choices, the last thing we need is to confuse the ballot even more names. What we need to do is to make the voting process simplier, not more muddied. isn't that easy enough for you to understand?


And it should be difficult to get your name on the ballot to run for President. I can totally see all of these religious small southern towns wanting their Pastors to be on the ballot. Hell, Jim Jones had thousands of followers didn't he? Should his name have been on the ballot?

I guess I just don't understand why the liberals are always trying to give everybody rights? You're just too weak to be able to tell someone NO every once in a while.

Weed out the stray candidates and narrow the decision down to two candidates and quit worrying about everyone being included all the time.

[roosta]

democracy sux lol

[travesty]

When you go to buy a car, a relatively intelligent mind will try to narrow down the decision from a dozen cars down to the final two or three, and then compare them and make the final decision on which car is best for them. Maybe you just aren't relatively intelligent, huh. Maybe you don't understand the process of elimantion?

I usually narrow it down to three or four, but as long as you agree on three I think I made my point. :)Where is this "process of elimination" when these candidates do not get the same media coverage and are not invited to the major debates? Besides, just because YOU have eliminated a choice from your purchase decision does not mean it shouldn't be offered for sale to others.

When you consider the difficulties we've had in determining who people voted for on a CHAD when there are only two choices, the last thing we need is to confuse the ballot even more names. What we need to do is to make the voting process simplier, not more muddied. isn't that easy enough for you to understand?

Simplifying the voting process has nothing to do with who, or how many names are on the ballot. By your flawed reasoning, how do we make the process simpler than two candidates, have ONE candidate?


And it should be difficult to get your name on the ballot to run for President. I can totally see all of these religious small southern towns wanting their Pastors to be on the ballot. Hell, Jim Jones had thousands of followers didn't he? Should his name have been on the ballot?

I agree that it should be difficult and it is. But the fact remains that these people have gone through the inordinate amount of BS and gathered the support they need by law to be on the ballot in most states. We're talking about 5 people here that are legitmately running for president this year Corky. Not hundreds or even dozens, but 5! I know it is hard to grasp, but use your "process of elimination" and what meager brain power you can muster and pick one of the five...OR have some arbitrary buddy of yours narrow it down to two for you if 5 is too many, I'll understand.


I guess I just don't understand why the liberals are always trying to give everybody rights? You're just too weak to be able to tell someone NO every once in a while.

It's the law:eek:. If you can deal with the paperwork and muster the needed amount of support even a "special little guy" like you can run for president. This is AMERICA, at least what is left of it thanks to your ilk.


Weed out the stray candidates and narrow the decision down to two candidates and quit worrying about everyone being included all the time.

If 5 candidates is too many for you to make an informed decision about.... well I guess there is no sense arguing.

Fuck we need to work on our school system in this country.

[DroppinScience]

Simplifying the voting process has nothing to do with who, or how many names are on the ballot. By your flawed reasoning, how do we make the process simpler than two candidates, have ONE candidate?

One candidate would probably be too much choice even for Rob. Here's an even simpler proposal so democracy won't be so confusing: have NO elections and just appoint a supreme ruler for life.


If 5 candidates is too many for you to make an informed decision about.... well I guess there is no sense arguing.

Fuck we need to work on our school system in this country.

I like how having potentially 5 candidates on a ballot = 100s of right-wing religious wingnuts "muddying" up the system. I missed that leap in logic.

[RobMoney$]

One candidate would probably be too much choice even for Rob. Here's an even simpler proposal so democracy won't be so confusing: have NO elections and just appoint a supreme ruler for life.


You know what Lambert, I've made an attempt to be civil to you.
Once again you take an unprovoked shot at me. It'll be the last, I promise you.
I bet you felt real proud of yourself, you see someone take a shot at me and you think to yourself "oOoh, RobMoney bashing, I'll jump in on this."
Did you IM your girlfriend and tell her about it you fucking dork.

Let me break Lambert down for everyone. He's the guy who's still in school because he's afraid of the real world...educated beyond his intelligence...he lives in a bubble. All his life experience has been supplied to him from a series of hyper-links and uber-liberal college proffessors who have brainwashed him with their liberal bullshit. That's where the elitist attitude comes from, he thinks he's actually smarter than me. LOL

Just a warning here Diana, personality traits of the Ivory tower elitist crowd include:

+ Impatient with people deemed "less intelligent" than they are.
+ Cold hearted, mean, nasty, rude.
+ Generally intolerable to be around.

[ToucanSpam]

Why not just settle this with a friendly Presidential debate, facilitated by me. Stop this horse shit name calling, pre-pubescent teenage girl catty drama.



Also, there is some value to a monarchy/dictatorship. Just saying.

[RobMoney$]

Why not just settle this with a friendly Presidential debate, facilitated by me. Stop this horse shit name calling, pre-pubescent teenage girl catty drama.


I tried staying above the fray for longer than Lame-bert deserved.
He kept taking little stupid shots like the balding dickwad that he is.

Don't blame me for defending myself now.

[DroppinScience]

You know what Lambert, I've made an attempt to be civil to you.
Once again you take an unprovoked shot at me. It'll be the last, I promise you.
I bet you felt real proud of yourself, you see someone take a shot at me and you think to yourself "oOoh, RobMoney bashing, I'll jump in on this."
Did you IM your girlfriend and tell her about it you fucking dork.

Let me break Lambert down for everyone. He's the guy who's still in school because he's afraid of the real world...educated beyond his intelligence...he lives in a bubble. All his life experience has been supplied to him from a series of hyper-links and uber-liberal college proffessors who have brainwashed him with their liberal bullshit. That's where the elitist attitude comes from, he thinks he's actually smarter than me. LOL

Just a warning here Diana, personality traits of the Ivory tower elitist crowd include:

+ Impatient with people deemed "less intelligent" than they are.
+ Cold hearted, mean, nasty, rude.
+ Generally intolerable to be around.

Awww... I hurt poor Rob's feelings? :rolleyes:

And you've attempted to be civil with me? I don't know, I wasn't the one hurling homophobic insults at the first opportunity. You even laughed at me for caring about women's rights (which is a sad thing to ridicule me over and shows how much of a Neanderthal bigot you are). Just face it, the only reason you are on this board is to be a troll and play victim as the sole "life-long Democrat" conservative in a sea of "uber-liberal" college educated "elitists" who bludgeon you to death with things called facts.

If I or anyone else is un-civil to you, it is because you set the tone of the conversation. In fact, at the first moment you are attacked for having invalid points, you are the one to get personal and demeaning (why bring up the fact that I'm in school... I don't mention the fact that you are blue collar nor do I particularly care what your education background is). I've never seen anyone evade and dodge direct questions the way you do. If we're having a conversation on this board about third parties, Iraq, Obama, etc. instead of addressing people's points, you'll say something asinine like "How's zorra doing?" to Pres Zount, call Bob a 24 year old virgin, or tell me I'm a dork, try to bring my girlfriend into this or anything else that is beside the point. These are all quite petty and nasty, nor were any of them provoked. Nobody here makes cracks about your very own online girlfriend in these discussions. So don't go all acting shocked and hurt if any of this nastiness comes right back at you. If you dish it out, you can take it. That simple.

[kaiser soze]

Amen

[QueenAdrock]

And how do you know about his life experiences, Rob? You're friends with him and he tells you everything he goes through? No? Then you're assuming things. Like you always do. Great, you have life experience because you were in AA and NA and had gambling problems, or whatever else you told us. People get life experience other ways, and I don't expect you to know any of Brett's life experiences because he doesn't post shit online about what goes on in his everyday life.

I find it ironic that you bash on him for acting like he's so "intelligent" (and therefore thinks he's better than you) when YOU'RE the one harping on how great "life experience" is and how he has none of it, and therefore you're better than him. I mean, how many times have you brought up people's ages and tried to make it seem that since you're a ripe 36 your opinion is justified and theirs is "naive"? I mean, give me a break. You're constantly condescending to anyone who doesn't share your point of view. I find it sad.

And if that's your definition of "Ivory tower elitist" (nice Fox News buzz word, by the way), then I'm going to laugh at you even thinking Brett's any of that. I mean, it's just too funny for words.

[RobMoney$]

Awww... I hurt poor Rob's feelings? :rolleyes:

And you've attempted to be civil with me? I don't know, I wasn't the one hurling homophobic insults at the first opportunity. You even laughed at me for caring about women's rights (which is a sad thing to ridicule me over and shows how much of a Neanderthal bigot you are). Just face it, the only reason you are on this board is to be a troll and play victim as the sole "life-long Democrat" conservative in a sea of "uber-liberal" college educated "elitists" who bludgeon you to death with things called facts.

If I or anyone else is un-civil to you, it is because you set the tone of the conversation. In fact, at the first moment you are attacked for having invalid points, you are the one to get personal and demeaning (why bring up the fact that I'm in school... I don't mention the fact that you are blue collar nor do I particularly care what your education background is). I've never seen anyone evade and dodge direct questions the way you do. If we're having a conversation on this board about third parties, Iraq, Obama, etc. instead of addressing people's points, you'll say something asinine like "How's zorra doing?" to Pres Zount, call Bob a 24 year old virgin, or tell me I'm a dork, try to bring my girlfriend into this or anything else that is beside the point. These are all quite petty and nasty, nor were any of them provoked. Nobody here makes cracks about your very own online girlfriend in these discussions. So don't go all acting shocked and hurt if any of this nastiness comes right back at you. If you dish it out, you can take it. That simple.


First and foremost, you didn't hurt ANYONE'S feelings. Don't ever think in your precious little bald head that you ever hurt my feelings.
I said I'm sick of turning the other cheek when it comes to you and your continous unprovoked bullshit snide remarks. So now I won't turn the other cheek, you take a shot at me and I'm gonna come with a fucking CANNON at you, cannonboy.

Yeah, you're the victim. A familiar role for you, huh. Maybe you shouldn't "attack" someone's opinions just because they're different than yours. Having differing opinions is a healthy format for a political discussion forum. I tried to illustrate this point directly to you, but I guess it went over your ever-balding head.

Bottom line is you started this shit, unprovoked. You are not Zount, Bob, or anyone else, so stop trying to be a martyr for them. Who the fuck elected you to speak for the group? This is about you. I said nothing to you before you decided to take yet another unprovoked shot at me.

Secondly, I'm not exactly blue-collar, I work in a lab. I don't wear a uniform or punch a timeclock or anything, but I have when I was younger and have much more respect for people like that than I do for people who hide in college half their lives and think they're somehow "smarter" than the rest of the world.

Third, Everyone knows I met my girlfriend here. Am I supposed to be somehow embarressed by that? Because I wasn't. And you've met Diana on here. So fucking what?
Have I EVER said anything negative about that fact to either one of you, NO!
Have I ever said anything negative to either one of you about your relationship at all? NO!
So I'm missing your point completely, as usual.

[RobMoney$]

And how do you know about his life experiences, Rob? You're friends with him and he tells you everything he goes through? No? Then you're assuming things. Like you always do. Great, you have life experience because you were in AA and NA and had gambling problems, or whatever else you told us. People get life experience other ways, and I don't expect you to know any of Brett's life experiences because he doesn't post shit online about what goes on in his everyday life.

I find it ironic that you bash on him for acting like he's so "intelligent" (and therefore thinks he's better than you) when YOU'RE the one harping on how great "life experience" is and how he has none of it, and therefore you're better than him. I mean, how many times have you brought up people's ages and tried to make it seem that since you're a ripe 36 your opinion is justified and theirs is "naive"? I mean, give me a break. You're constantly condescending to anyone who doesn't share your point of view. I find it sad.

And if that's your definition of "Ivory tower elitist" (nice Fox News buzz word, by the way), then I'm going to laugh at you even thinking Brett's any of that. I mean, it's just too funny for words.


Look, my girlfriend doesn't come here and respond to your boyfriends' posts, so do me a favor and let Bratt respond for himself.

I originally was trying to respond to your thread, but Brett had to shoehorn himself into things by jumping in on the RobMoney bumrush. Maybe if he had let you respond on your own in the first place, things wouldn't have degraded to this.

[DroppinScience]

Yeah, you're the victim. A familiar role for you, huh. Maybe you shouldn't "attack" someone's opinions just because they're different than yours. Having differing opinions is a healthy format for a political discussion forum. I tried to illustrate this point directly to you, but I guess it went over your ever-balding head.

Where did I say I was a victim? If anything, I was saying YOU paint yourself as the victim. I'll use one of your favorite phrases: pot calling the kettle black.

You would be well-served to follow your own advice. I'm perfectly fine with you having a different opinion than anyone else and none of us have attacked you for having a different opinion (but you've been attacked for not properly backing up your position), but it's only been you who has problems with others having views that are not your own. Anyone who disagrees with you is an "Obamat(r)on." The problem with you is that you can't back your opinions when put on the spot, so instead you go the personal route and start insulting people to divert attention from this.

Bottom line is you started this shit, unprovoked. You are not Zount, Bob, or anyone else, so stop trying to be a martyr for them. Who the fuck elected you to speak for the group? This is about you. I said nothing to you before you decided to take yet another unprovoked shot at me.

I used Zount and Bob as examples for your pattern of behavior and giving it a proper context. I'm trying to show you that how you treat me is easily mirrored in how you treat others. No, I wasn't elected to speak for the group, nor am I attempting to. But if any of them want to speak up, they're more than welcome to.

Secondly, I'm not exactly blue-collar, I work in a lab. I don't wear a uniform or punch a timeclock or anything, but I have when I was younger and have much more respect for people like that than I do for people who hide in college half their lives and think they're somehow "smarter" than the rest of the world.

Wow, being a tad presumptuous, are we? All these accusations are unfounded and you're grasping for straws. Even though I've been in college awhile (and my current path will lead me to a secure professional job in less than two years time, so my days of hiding are numbered!), I haven't been "hiding" (as if it's bad thing to be in post-secondary education). If you must know, both before and during college, I've worn uniforms and punched timeclocks too (well, actually swiping a card, but that's neither here nor there). I've worked (and volunteered) part-time during school and full-time in the summer (even taking on as many as 3 jobs and one volunteer position at one point!). Getting a college degree is just an extra perk. Have I earned my RobMoney$ street cred yet?

[QueenAdrock]

Brett did respond for himself. However, I stand up for anyone who I feel has wrongful attacks against them, not just Brett. If Mae wanted to come on and talk to Brett or anyone else, she can do so, too. It's a free country.

[RobMoney$]

However, I stand up for anyone who I feel has wrongful attacks against them, not just Brett.

Perhaps you should start by standing up to your own BF first because he's the one who started this.

[Bob]

Bottom line is you started this shit, unprovoked. You are not Zount, Bob, or anyone else, so stop trying to be a martyr for them. Who the fuck elected you to speak for the group? This is about you. I said nothing to you before you decided to take yet another unprovoked shot at me.


he's right though, you do say some pretty mean unprovoked shit about us from time to time

[RobMoney$]

I edited the Zorra comment minutes after I posted it. Didn't I Bob?
I did that because I realized it was bullshit. Unfortunetly you had quoted it before I could erase it. WHATEVER

The only reason Lamebert even brought it up was because he needs a gang of supporters to help him fight this battle.

and can you really call the fact that I called you a virgin mean? You post about it jokingly all the time.
I guess it's a selective joke, huh?

How about the time I offered to buy you and Adam F plane tickets if Crystal could find a friend for you. I was fucking serious.
I'm here to help you in your mission in any way I can. Why can't you see that man?

[Burnout18]

I wish I had the time to worry about such trivial shit as making sure such people are included.


no, instead you just have enough time to consistently make fairly well thought out posts about sports, politics and fight with kenny guido.

No offense, but while i agree with you in theory on a bunch of shit, sometimes you just shoot yourself in the foot. But, fight the good fight.

[QueenAdrock]

Ever-balding head? Pretty ballsy of you to comment on others' appearances, Rob. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, I still see Brett bringing up political attacks against you, and you just respond with personal shit. I really hope you're not teaching your kids that kind of thing. But no, Brett's the "cold-hearted, mean, nasty, and rude," one here, right? Do you honestly think that saying "One candidate would probably be too much choice even for Rob. Here's an even simpler proposal so democracy won't be so confusing: have NO elections and just appoint a supreme ruler for life," is really that insulting? I personally didn't think so. Yes, it's a jab at you, to which a jab back is expected. I mean, this meltdown response just wasn't expected at all. I never thought Brett got to you that much, but I guess I've been proven wrong.

[100% ILL]

Wait a minute DroppinScience is bald! Well now that changes everything.

[Bob]

bald and gay

[100% ILL]

bald and gay

Well, I guess that explains the ongoing spat with RobMoney............but I gotta ask. Whatever happened to "I putting you on my ignore list" (anyone remember Q-drop Ace 42)........


Just sayin'



but then again it is more fun to read the insults. I was laughing pretty good on a couple of those. I guess I need to go back and review some of the older threads to get the history of this "heated" rivalry.

[RobMoney$]

One candidate would probably be too much choice even for Rob


Condescending, elitist, snobbish, and just generally retarded. And by the way, how the hell is that comment a political attack against me? It's a personal attack, plain and simple and I've had enough of it from this fuckwad.

Whatever, I'm done with it.

Lambert, keep my fuckin name out of your mouth and you'll have nothing to worry about.
Or keep insulting me for no reason and I'll keep shredding you too.
Balls in your court.

[DroppinScience]

Lambert, keep my fuckin name out of your mouth and you'll have nothing to worry about.
Or keep insulting me for no reason and I'll keep shredding you too.
Balls in your court.

Well, you'd be the only person to think that what you're doing is "shredding" by any means, but you go ahead and humor yourself.

[RobMoney$]

You got it DroppinDuece.

[QueenAdrock]

So, I just received a SECOND ballot, this time from Maryland. There's something wrong with their system, because I specifically asked to have my voter registration switched to NC (which they did). I'm going to throw it away because it's illegal to vote twice...but still, what the fuck?!

It's interesting to see the differences in the ballots though.

This one says the candidates names AND the state they're from underneath (why, I have no idea). Plus, these are the options:

Obama/Biden - Democrat
McCain/Palin - Republican
McKinney/Clemente - Green
Barr/Root - Libertarian
Nader/Gonzalez - Independent
Baldwin/Castle - Constitution
Write-In

Crazy shit. You can really see how strict NC is with who gets on the ballot when compared to Maryland.

I'm a little sad because I can't vote for Van Hollen this election. He's a great guy and I hope he wins.

[yeahwho]

You can still vote for Van Hollen (http://www.cover-vs-original.com/you-really-got-me/van-halen-the-kinks.html)

[RobMoney$]

So, I just received a SECOND ballot, this time from Maryland. There's something wrong with their system, because I specifically asked to have my voter registration switched to NC (which they did). I'm going to throw it away because it's illegal to vote twice...but still, what the fuck?!


That's probably one of the reasons why there's always so much wrangling over the absentee ballots. Too much opportunity for voter fraud.

It's kind of disheartening when you think about how close the 2000 election was and if mix-ups like this could be what's responsible for the eight years of Bush.

The same thing can be said for the Homeless Ohioans for Obama issue. There's something inherently wrong with a voting process that leaves a door open for someone to possibly vote more than once. Having someone who's homeless register a temp address at a YMCA is fine. But when you consider that it's possible for people to register at multiple Y's in different counties and vote more than once, then that's troublesome to say the least.

[Dorothy Wood]

I'm gonna ask tpk and minton to delete this thread.

[NoFenders]

Why?

:confused:



:cool:

[RobMoney$]

I'm gonna ask tpk and minton to delete this thread.


They most likely won't, considering you didn't start the thread.

[Dorothy Wood]

I was kidding. It just looked like there was more fighting in here than the other one. and you brought up the homeless thing again.

sorry, just being a maverick.

[yeahwho]

Go back to being a joe six pack, er now they call the ladies wal-mart moms.

[Dorothy Wood]

NO WAY NO HOW, I'M A MAVERICK AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME DIFFERNT

[RobMoney$]

So Dorothy bumps this thread that was halfway to being pushed off the page hoping to spark the fire that was put out in the thread that got deleted?

How lovely.

[Dorothy Wood]

I didn't bump this thread, it was near the top when I replied to it. fuzzy math, rob, fuzzy math.