DO NOT VOTE FOR HILARY CLINTON!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
sinsboldly
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7470_1448760119.jpg)
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
sinsboldly
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7470_1448760119.jpg)
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
I like Nobody for president
Who will fight for the working people? NOBODY!
Who will stop the corruption in Washington? NOBODY!
Who will stop the pork barrel politics? NOBODY!
Who will be the best president for ALL the people? NOBODY
Who will bring the country together again??
you got it. . vote NOBODY for president!
thank you Pat Paulsen
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
An impossible dream????
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
so i take it you won't be voting for hillary or barak or rudy or mitt....considering they all just give lip service and have their own agendas that are opposing to that of the american people.
I've been voting 3rd party ever since I could vote...the two-party system is a sham.
the biggest sham is the idea of voting third party considering the rules for media coverage and debate.
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
An impossible dream????
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
so i take it you won't be voting for hillary or barak or rudy or mitt....considering they all just give lip service and have their own agendas that are opposing to that of the american people.
I've been voting 3rd party ever since I could vote...the two-party system is a sham.
the biggest sham is the idea of voting third party considering the rules for media coverage and debate.
I'd rather vote for someone who I believe in but has no chance of winning than a tyrant who is likely to win. At least I have voiced my opinion, even if my vote doesn't count.
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
An impossible dream????
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
so i take it you won't be voting for hillary or barak or rudy or mitt....considering they all just give lip service and have their own agendas that are opposing to that of the american people.
I've been voting 3rd party ever since I could vote...the two-party system is a sham.
the biggest sham is the idea of voting third party considering the rules for media coverage and debate.
I'd rather vote for someone who I believe in but has no chance of winning than a tyrant who is likely to win. At least I have voiced my opinion, even if my vote doesn't count.
i don't mean it to sound like i'm discouraging third party voting...i started out registered as libertarian. i just think that with the current "rules" written up with regards to fair media time and all that, third parties get screwed over and they don't get nearly the coverage and therefore casts an image of "they can't win" on them. but that could change with the internet considering how well the ron paul campaign has been going so far.
sinsboldly
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7470_1448760119.jpg)
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/wasdin/wasdin5.html
That's why it's best to buy your own private island-nation. Think about it: no taxes, no people, no BS. And yet, you can still probably get internet via satelite. Also, you and your significant other need not wear clothes unless you just feel like it. All-in-all, sounds nice. All I need is the $.
It's not like we need roads, or sanitation, or water treatment facilities or any sort of infrastructure.
Exactly. Ever seen Survivor Man, or Man vs. Wild? If those guys can handle the Sahara and the Amazon, with no base of operations whatsoever, I think can we can handle a relatively tame island for which we've brought countless crates of supplies.
I don't need the government to hold my hand and do things for me, do you? All I need is the proper equipment. And if you really need some form of government to feel safe, you just create your own! You'd be the leader.
and you would be effectively taking your selves away from the rest of us, so it is a win-win situation!
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Merle
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
An impossible dream????
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
so i take it you won't be voting for hillary or barak or rudy or mitt....considering they all just give lip service and have their own agendas that are opposing to that of the american people.
I've been voting 3rd party ever since I could vote...the two-party system is a sham.
the biggest sham is the idea of voting third party considering the rules for media coverage and debate.
I'd rather vote for someone who I believe in but has no chance of winning than a tyrant who is likely to win. At least I have voiced my opinion, even if my vote doesn't count.
i don't mean it to sound like i'm discouraging third party voting...i started out registered as libertarian. i just think that with the current "rules" written up with regards to fair media time and all that, third parties get screwed over and they don't get nearly the coverage and therefore casts an image of "they can't win" on them. but that could change with the internet considering how well the ron paul campaign has been going so far.
We need to pass a law like they have in France where all the candidates get equal airtime.
sinsboldly
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7470_1448760119.jpg)
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
An impossible dream????
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
so i take it you won't be voting for hillary or barak or rudy or mitt....considering they all just give lip service and have their own agendas that are opposing to that of the american people.
I've been voting 3rd party ever since I could vote...the two-party system is a sham.
the biggest sham is the idea of voting third party considering the rules for media coverage and debate.
I'd rather vote for someone who I believe in but has no chance of winning than a tyrant who is likely to win. At least I have voiced my opinion, even if my vote doesn't count.
i don't mean it to sound like i'm discouraging third party voting...i started out registered as libertarian. i just think that with the current "rules" written up with regards to fair media time and all that, third parties get screwed over and they don't get nearly the coverage and therefore casts an image of "they can't win" on them. but that could change with the internet considering how well the ron paul campaign has been going so far.
We need to pass a law like they have in France where all the candidates get equal airtime.
Actually we have our own, but it doesn't apply to cable. See more Broadcast News Laws
The "Equal Time" Law
47 USC Section 315
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any--
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
(b) The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed--
(1) during the forty-five days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period; and
(2) at any other time, the charges made for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.
(c) For purposes of this section--
(1) the term "broadcasting station" includes a community antenna television system; and
(2) the terms "licensee" and "station licensee" when used with respect to a community antenna television system mean the operator of such system.
(d) Rules and regulations
The Commission shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Candidate Access Law
47 USC Section 312
(a) the Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit--
(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy
no regulations on cable other than that they can't host presidential debates. i think that'd be fair and ensure freedom of speech for the cable channels who are outside the FCC regulations for the time being....and i think they should remain outside the FCC (afterall, it's not free airwaves like broadcast television...it's privately paid television).
sinsboldly
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7470_1448760119.jpg)
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield....very good oldies song....if not a bit depressing sounding.
Thanks very much!
"For What It's Worth" was written by Stephen Stills about the Sunset Strip curfew riots. Bruce Palmer and Neil Young were also part of the band along with Goldie McJohn, later of Steppenwolf.
Stills went on to Crosby Stills & Nash; Furay and Messina formed Poco; and Neil Young began his brilliant and idiosyncratic career solo, with Crazy Horse, and with Crosby Stills Nash & Young.
Iconic music.
Merle
sinsboldly
Veteran
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7470_1448760119.jpg)
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
can't stand his high pitched whiny voice.
I personally can not abide Neil Young. and I am helpless, helpless, helpless, helpless to feel any other way.
Merle
Aw, Neil Young had some good songs - he even went techno for a while with his song "Transformer Man" in the 1980's.
_________________
Break out you Western girls,
Someday soon you're gonna rule the world.
Break out you Western girls,
Hold your heads up high.
"Western Girls" - Dragon