KaskadskyjKozak

I agree, and extend the criticism on what needs fixed beyond them.

not good. I assume you agree again?

no, but that's not the only "issue" we hear about. i'd like for all the dead people and felons to be stricken from the voter registrations as well.

Maybe we should bring in observers to monitor our elections - just like we do in other countries. No, I'm not joking.

At last we can agree on something!

also the sound made when hitting your empty skull still following me around to snipe? funny, I thought that's what I was supposed to be doing. so far today the score is 2:0. keep it up, you only prove how full of crap you are

you said 2006 was corrupted, yet your "side" won that one.

*thwack* *thwack* *thwack* (black helicopters)

Excellent points, Ketch. I believe concept of "perceived cold" is significant in Reynauds. I can be perfectly warm in the house, but the mere thought of going out for a ride or run on a cold day will cause my fingers begin to discolor. Freaky. consider a good balaclava... less cold will get to your neck/hood on your parka.

I'm talking about 2004. Do you actual contend that Bush did not win?

Umm, yeah, right. And I guess now that you've come to that conclusion and the media haven't reported this, it's another example of media bias.

Clearly, Bush never could have actually won.

careful dude, he'll read that as full of sack and lick shit and come from your pooper wow, you're so much of an asshole, you need twin avatars which behave exactly the same - amazing!

you mean like you putting me on "ignore"? or that *I* follow *you* around and attack all your postings? you're full of shit dude. Now go lick sack.

Cross winds were a bit nasty today but it was good to ride in. And it was almost balmy.

I laugh every time I hear this. Both parties have moved to the LEFT in the past 50 years. Right now the Republicans arguably occupy roughly the same spot on the political spectrum where the democrats stood circa the Kennedy presidency. And don't start up about "the religious right". Religion played a lot bigger role in both parties 45 years ago than it does today.

I agree with this. And it seems like this is something which could actually be reformed. Another thing that irks me is the way primaries are run and scheduled. The structure and schedule benefits the parties, and not the voter. This year some states tried to move up their primaries to have more influence and were smacked down by the parties. I believe Michigan is one - and only Hillary is on the ballet there? And wasn't it the case that the conventions used to actually mean something? There was still some debate and uncertainty at the convention? But now the things are rigged so they are merely a place to grandstand and coronate the party leader.

Again, an oversimplification. Corporations have a huge influence but don't account for everything that goes on in politics - not even close. And aren't you conveniently ignoring the role of unions, non-profits, and others? As for the system being "broken". Was it ever substantively better? Was there ever a time in this country or in any other democracy in the history of the world, where the poltical process was free of all influences of the rich, "corporations", etc? Politics is all about the interconnections between power, wealth, and control and always has been. Democracy does not make this go away.

i'm lame, i admit it! yeah i agree that on a relative level, the things we are interested in, the things we do, are sources of connection etc, and on a certain level says to others something about us, but i don't think these are the things we "are". i tend to think these are the things we "do". i guess i tend to think that there is something more or other to us than simply our actions. there's an a priori potential, energy, creative life force, that then expresses itself in the various capacities particular to the proclivities of the individual (oh good lord this sounds wordy). so before particularization if you will, there is simply the energy of unexpressed consciousness and awareness. it's beyond and before any "activity" or expression of interest or drive or etc. yes.

But even if you know what a candidate claims to stand for, does he really? Don't politicians lie regularly, flip-flop, "evolve", whatever you want to call it? And does the president really run the show? Isn't he beholden to his party, interest groups and supporters. Doesn't the cabinet and staff/advisors in total really run the show? Considering all that, whom we vote for is more about our "gut feeling" about the person and his affiliations/people behind the scenes, and history. At least for the primary. For the general election it is more about voting "against" the person you have less trust in, or whose affiliations/interests/interest you reject the most.

You're the biggest target of all in more ways than one.

1) Candidates are often vague on positions so they can "adjust" them as is expedient, or just keep them hidden to avoid being attacked. 2) Candidates in primaries are trying different tactics/messages out to see how they "resonate". Like Hillary "finding her voice" at the last minute. 3) the "real story" is the "horse race", and any shockers/surprises that come up (dirty politics) during campaigning.

"Time for your deep cavity exam, America!!!! Bwah-ha-ha!! I'm gettin' some fudge!!!" Um, yeah, we kinda got that from the pic. Guess you really don't have me on "ignore" as you claimed earlier, OCD-Booby-Man!

"Time for your deep cavity exam, America!!!! Bwah-ha-ha!! I'm gettin' some fudge!!!"

I need more evidence. Post a picture showing the rest of her.