On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:37:12 GMT, "U Know Who"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On 28 Oct 2004 03:34:35 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

snip
www.votenader.org

He may not crack the loudest whip in the lion's cage, but he's the
only one that can give a direct answer to a direct question.

True enough but he has as much chance as you or I getting elected.


I don't vote for someone based on their chances to win. What good is
that? What message are you sending? That you are content with the
lesser of two evils? You should vote for whoever you think will do the
best job.

Because people keep voting for who they think will be the 'winner',
the next president will either be tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee (thank
you, Helen Keller, for your wonderful insight), and partisan politics
will always take precedence over common sense and public interests.
The two parties like it that way. Both were scared ****less when Perot
made a strong showing in his first run. But instead of choosing better
candidates to compete against third parties, they shut-out the other
parties as much as possible.

I vote for independence -- independence from the two-party cartel. We
will never be given better choices until we begin to -make- better
choices. IMHO.





But Frank, even though I agree with you 100%, do you think it's possible to
pound this in to the voter's minds?


They are already receiving a heavy pounding from all the political
mud-slinging. Maybe people would actually be -happy- to be offered an
escape route.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---