If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Tampa Tribune joins the rest of the country in throwing up its hands and refusing to endorse a presidential candidate   ( story.news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

12736 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2004 at 1:12 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

185 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-10-18 03:13:47 AM  
You know while I'm into it, I honestly think there is a Conspiracy ( see www.subgenius.com, if you can't copy and paste then you're not worthy ) and I do think it's very, very wealthy people managing and manipulating the humans of this planet. Tin-foil sounding. So what. I've been through HELL in my life, sheer torment, and nothing seemed to make sense. Am about to go through the meat-grinder again too.

What have I learned?

The wealthy get wealthier while I get poorer.

So why Libertarian? Perhaps they will get rid of the darned government administrator who only works 3 of 5 days ( talkin' to you TopKnot and you know who I am ) because she's an executive administrator and deserves down time.

Anyone ever wonder why you have to wait a bazillion hours in line to get a driver's license, or a green card, or whatever the fark else? They don't get fired. Why? Union power. Why does the union have that much power? Moolla!

Meanwhile the religious maniacs, wanting to meet Jesus in this lifetime, are fervently trying to bring about the Apocalypse. How do I know? I was one of them once. Yup. Me. CrazyCurt. I wouldn't mind the Apocalypse actually, you humans frighten and discourage me, but then the universe wouldn't have Hendrix, which would be a shame.

Raised a hippy, turned into a christian, read a Libertarian book, then, the most important thing I've read in my life, I read the Book of the SubGenius. I ain't been right since boys and girls.

Maybe I'll just write in "Bob", but I don't know if he's dead or alive again.
2004-10-18 03:18:13 AM  
Sir Chevron Food Mart - White makes right, eh?

Let's just say, White is aight, and the White race has nothing to apologize for to anyone, except maybe itself.

Conversely, there's no bigger rube on earth than the guilty White liberal.

sucker mc

banned? me? Wouldn't be the first time. Mods, I believe it's my turn to buy the drinks.

What I write wouldn't scare people so much if it didn't ring true. I would invite you all to visit Killafornia, where I am, except there's no need: the ignorant, illegal neo-Mexican future hell on Amerika's soil your kids will inherit is well on its way to fruition everywhere.

Fifty years or less.
2004-10-18 03:19:57 AM  

Oh, and faethe, let me say, if that nastiness happened to California during the Bush administration, it would not only be ignored, it would be applauded.

"Hahaha Jesus done keeld dem hippies, good rid-dance, commies hahahaha!"

Ya know you are probably right. How in fark stuff like this gets turned into a political thing is beyond me. If you guys get slammed with a goodun - that really trashes up a good piece, it should be a "oh well what the hell, the war was fun but now another state went off line. Guess we have to pull people home and help our own people" deal.

Ya know - when you hear that the people in Iraq have the electricity back on in their schools and shiat, and you REALLY HAVE to start making comparisons as to when that will farking happen for you, there is a PROBLEM.
2004-10-18 03:22:51 AM  
2004-10-18 03:13:47 AM CrazyCurt

Heck, man, that's no conspiracy. That's by design. That's on purpose.

Capitalism is all about allocating money to those that help advance Capitalism.

And the more money you have, the more power you have. Otherwise, what would the point of money be, really?

Fortunately, the point of Governments is to make sure that the whole thing doesn't get out of hand.

Unfortunately, corporations are far more competant than the Feds are.
2004-10-18 03:28:11 AM  
But there is a limit .

How many rich people will buy a yacht? Quite a few. But not as many as people who will buy milk.

I guess it's volume versus value, quality over quantity, fashion over function.

Seems screwed in my eyes.

--- function/fashion ---
2004-10-18 03:28:51 AM  
Sorry, bad HTML. My apologies Team Fark.
2004-10-18 03:33:25 AM  
Sure, there are limits built into the system, such as sliding income taxes and welfare. They could work better though. And the wealth distribution could work better too... a football player is NOT worth a thousand times more than a top scientist.

But all in all, capitalism is doing pretty well. Too bad the same isn't true of the government.
2004-10-18 03:33:33 AM  
I laugh at those who think we can change the two-party system. Go take Political Science 101, folks.

In a winner-take-all, plurality-based election like we have, three major parties will never coexist for an extended period of time. It makes no sense; the two that are closest ideologically will combine, if they have any intelligence whatsoever.

Let's say we have three major parties. One is generally conservative and gets approximately 40% of the vote. The two others are generally liberal and get 35% and 25% of the vote, respectively. See the problem already? The way that sets up, the conservatives would win every election, assuming party line voting. The liberals should then unite the two parties, and easily win every election from then on.

I'm not saying it's impossible to have more than two major parties. It can exist, but it's not stable (see Perot, 1992). Or we can switch to proportional representation, but somehow I can't see America switching to PR, with the inherent loss of individualism in politics that comes with it. We aren't too good at putting the group ahead of the individual in this country.
2004-10-18 03:38:38 AM  
faethe -- bad to the bone. Hit 'em. I like that. Good luck to ya bud.

--- too whacked, outta here ---
2004-10-18 03:38:41 AM  
Sir Chevron - Of course, the fact that the first illegal immigrants into California were, in fact, white Americans changes nothing, eh?

Plenty of Mexicans in California didn't move to America. The borders moved for them.
2004-10-18 03:41:02 AM  
Wait, one more thing.

Fark PoliSci101! I threw a chair at the prof one day into classes. Yeah, I went nuts. Not unheard of event actually. But the jackass started out with crap like we are all liberals and I am going to prove it.

Hope I'm getting his tax money these days.
2004-10-18 05:18:07 AM  

I'm watching you!
[image from subgenius.com too old to be available]
2004-10-18 06:23:53 AM  
The paper definately has the right idea, the two major candidates both suck ass.

I'm going to probably vote for Kerry, but it just pisses me off that we have such a shiatty candidate for such an important election.

At least if I do vote for Nader, it won't affect Kerry. Georgia is as Red State as it gets.
2004-10-18 06:32:03 AM  
2004-10-18 06:23:53 AM Red Donkey
The paper definately has the right idea, the two major candidates both suck ass.

You've got that right.
I've disliked Kerry the whole campaign, but I finally made up my mind during the third debate.

2004-10-14 06:54:52 AM McGovern 72

Goodbye Kerry, Hello Nader.
2. And this is the big one that pissed me off. I didn't like Kerry or Edwards outing Cheney. Yeah, yeah, those of us who follow politics know she is a lesbian, but there are people somewhere who don't. I'm sure there are people I grew up with who don't know I'm gay and I wouldn't want it mentioned on television. It smacked of a cold political calculation, it was totally unnecessary, and it was wrong. If he will be wrong on something so obvious, what else will he be wrong on?

Nader 2004
Nation before Party

/Proud of myself for realizing immediantly that Kerry was wrong on what he said before the media even started talking about it.
2004-10-18 06:45:29 AM  
I live in Tampa and think this is a good thing. If only they would have endorsed a 3rd party candidate. I'm voting Badnarik. He may have some crazy ideas, but they would never get through. I happen to agree that all drugs and guns should be legal. Instead we would repeal the 16th amendment. Which I know all the Republicans would want, and then our taxes would be gone.

And if we all vote enough 3rd party candidates, maybe no one will get the majority vote. Then we can have the courts decide who are next president is.
2004-10-18 06:45:47 AM  
2004-10-18 06:32:03 AM McGovern 72

I agree with you about the lesbian remark. When I heard Kerry say that, I too knew it was wrong.

I figure it's like this: If your opponent's kid is divorced, many people will know it but it doesn't need to be mentioned on national television.

Now I'm getting pissed off again. Hell, maybe I will vote for Nader too.
2004-10-18 07:09:31 AM  
Have fun getting those equality rights under another Bush term. Can you say "consititutional ammendment"? You're delusional if you think that Nader or any other 3rd party candidate has a realistic shot at the presidentcy. At least with Kerry you get some sort of civil union type deal. Which basically sounds like "marriage rights with a different name". You're choice.

I'm so glad someone like bcp01scu05 finally spoke out against voting for 3rd party candidate. I don't much care for either candidate either, but given the choice between GW and Kerry, Kerry is the lesser of two evils. I was considering voting for Badnarik, but then I thought...that would be almost equal with not voting at all so why bother?
/has taken polisci101
//thinks that most dumbshiats don't know the difference between a plurality and a majority.
2004-10-18 07:14:41 AM  
Since that worked out SOOOO well last time. /rolls eyes
FYI: The Congress chooses the next president in a draw. And since Congress is Republican controlled you can be sure that if you vote for a 3rd party candidate in a state that might actually matter(ie: swing state) you might as well cast your ballot for good ole GW.
/shakes head in disgust for American politics
2004-10-18 07:25:18 AM  

"Outing" cheney? Mary Cheney was mentioned abundantly in the Cheney/Edwards debate, she has been openly gay for a long time, her job is promoting Coors among the gay community, she works for the bush campaign. To say that Kerry somehow outed her is patently ridiculous.

I will agree that Kerry probably shouldn't have mentioned her, because he had no real reason to, and mentioning relatives of the opposing candidates is a bit too private to do unless you have a real reason. Still, I don't think it's all that partisan.

In fact, I think the real partisan bastards are the cheneys for attacking Kerry over saying it. All he said was that she was gay. If you attack him for saying just that, then that implies that you think there's something wrong with being gay. If there's nothing wrong with being gay, why complain about someone who says it? So, the cheneys by complaining about what Kerry said for me just publicly admitted they disapprove of their own daughter. Plus, it's partisan because cheney THANKED edwards for mentioning his gay daughter, and no cheney made a peep when Alan Keyes called all lesbians and Mary Cheney "selfish hedonists" at the GOP convention. So, when one of their own slanders her for her sexuality, it's ok, when someone from the other party mentions her in a debate that doesn't really matter, it's ok, and in fact a reason to say thank you, but when Kerry mentions her in a debate that matters and that Bush lost, it's fit to complain about. All I see is partisan spin from the Bush campaign trying to undo some of the damage the debate did, and I think what they're doing is very hateful to the gay community, not to mention Mary Cheney herself.
2004-10-18 07:25:21 AM  
2004-10-18 07:09:31 AM wheaties
Oh, because I'll get marriage rights under a Kerry administration?

There will be no amendment at the national level, that was proved this congress. So stop teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs. I hate it when people on either side uses scare tactics.

"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."
-John Kerry

Eat me!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/politics/campaign/07memo.html?ex=109​8072000& en=05629d06fbe701b9&ei=5070&oref=login&oref=login&hp=&oref=login&pagew​anted=al l&position=
2004-10-18 07:31:00 AM  
2004-10-18 07:25:18 AM jsebrech

When Edwards mentioned the daughter, Cheney was obviously uncomfortable about it and just ended the discussion so he wouldn't have to wallop Edwards.

When Kerry did it again, it was just wrong. He could have mentioned any friend/politician he wished to, but he didn't have to mention an opponents daughter.

If you don't think it was wrong, then fine. But the polls I've seen show that most Americans felt it was wrong. And I see that shrub is getting a bounce in a lot of polls because of this. So if you want to be on the wrong side of the historical dialectic that will be your decision.
2004-10-18 07:32:48 AM  
And on this note, have a good day everyone.
It's volunteer day for me at the Senior's home!
2004-10-18 07:42:08 AM  
If Bush is half as bad as Kerry supporters claim then they should be asking themselves why their candidate isn't leading in the polls. Lurch must really suck.
2004-10-18 07:43:22 AM  
McGovern 72

If you don't think it was wrong, then fine. But the polls I've seen show that most Americans felt it was wrong. And I see that shrub is getting a bounce in a lot of polls because of this. So if you want to be on the wrong side of the historical dialectic that will be your decision.

If Cheney or Bush would have brought her up as a topic, or even skirted around 'personal family' issues, then year fair play. They didn't. So yeah that sucked.

Its not like there aren't lots of other gay people out there who wouldn't MIND becoming the focus of a debate. Old style Reagan would have been to get someone who wanted to be an example, and then mention them, their concerns, their hopes, and use them as the poster people for the debate. Ya know, live ms. and ms. Jane Average who just want to get married and get on with it.

On the flip side, I am completely for Gay Marriage, gay whatever the fark they want. If you wanna hookup and get legal, good on ya, pay taxes, get junk mail, stfu. Gay people adopting kids - fantastic. Two married dudes = usually two better than average incomes in the long run, good benefits, stable environment. Two married women = two primary care givers, two loving people fawning all over some kid, fark yeah. Beats the shiat out of foster care, hands down.

/Not to say Reagan of all people would have had shiat to do with gay persons- but that was his debate tactic. Get an average schmo and rock and sock em robots over what that average person wishes for their future.
2004-10-18 07:43:45 AM  
just browsing through your profile here McGovern 72...
"I decided the weekend before the election that Gore sucked too much to vote for. I voted for Nader and I'd do it again. And YES I live in Florida!"
yeah...you are psycho...
take political science 101 at your local community college or something and figure out that in our system of democracy thrid party candidates NEVER WIN. I'd think you'd notice that by now since you've voted in 8 of them.
As for your quote, I think he is refering to he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not on refusing to give you legal rights equivalent to marragie. I think it's just a technicallity they use so they won't piss off the Christian fundamentalists. See the key word in that quote is fundamentally.
"John Kerry and John Edwards will work to support civil unions"
2004-10-18 07:45:57 AM  
There will only be political alternatives in office, when the population become politically and economically polarized and painfully aware of it. Otherwise you get a bellcurve on voters and expenditures of political capital.

Infortunately for most of you, liberal democracy doesn't thrive under those conditions. So things are the way they are. Get used to it. Submit. Learn to facetiously cherish it.
2004-10-18 07:53:33 AM  
Stop whining.

If you're willing to sit idle and allow this to happen, you're an idiot.

This President has proven he cannot fiscally manage this country. Don't support his dream world...where you can spend tons of money on wars and security and give tax breaks at the same time.

Our forefathers warned us about all of this..

Nothing comes above solvency. Not safety. Not security. Not tax breaks. Nothing.
2004-10-18 07:59:50 AM  
Also..REDS..for your reading pleasure

Why can't we all be sober?
2004-10-18 08:03:19 AM  
As others have pointed out, there are a ton of disillusioned Republicans out there, not knowing what to do this election. I'm one of them. Actually, I'm a total social moderate, but like the traditional Republican economic platform better. That, however, has gone the way of the dodo. This year, I was going to write in John McCain. Not because I thought he could win, but because I wanted to use my vote to support someone I think is fit for the office of President. I'm going to be a poll worker at the election, so I had to go ahead and vote absentee. When I looked at my ballot, I read the following mind-blowing statement: "South Carolina law does not allow write-in votes for the office of President and Vice President." You can write someone in for the flippin' soil and water commissioner, but not President. I was so irate, I almost tore up my ballot right then. However, I did a few minutes of soul searching. I don't like where we are now. I knew that if I voted for Bush, I'd be supporting a continuation of the train wreck we're in. So I voted for Kerry. I'm still in mild shock that I did it, but there it is. Things need to change.
2004-10-18 08:11:03 AM  
bondgirl -- I believe you made the right decision.

The Republicans have several better candidates I would of voted for (IE: McCain, Powell), but they chose to run the proven train wreck.

When they chose further train wreck, I chose the best chance to prevent it.
2004-10-18 08:20:54 AM  
2004-10-18 08:25:09 AM  
It's not strange the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush, it was one of the most predictable endorsements in the country.

They've endorsed the republican candidate for president for the last 80 years. It's not a real endorsement, it's a pointless rubber stamp. Completely meaningless.
2004-10-18 08:29:29 AM  
Yeah, sure, when something good happens in Florida, we just get a plain ol' hero tag like everyone else. When something bad (that could have happened anywhere in this country) happens we get a special tag. Grrr...
2004-10-18 08:40:20 AM  
Giantrobot, the hurricane thing is a hoax...look it up on snopes.com.
2004-10-18 08:41:13 AM  
Jeep - I live in the same city you do...my friend...and Florida deserves the Florida tag. Pound-for-pound this state has the stupidist population in the universe. :-)
2004-10-18 08:42:03 AM  
As usual, Douglas Adams said it best:

"The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
2004-10-18 08:42:41 AM  
I never understood the concept of a newspaper endorsing one candidate pver another. Aren't journalists supposed to be impartial?
2004-10-18 08:46:09 AM  
Thanks for the reassurance, thethrowdown. I feel like I need group thereapy for Republicans who voted Kerry.
2004-10-18 08:48:32 AM  
Thanks evlisevlis.

I've actually seen it being defended by christian Republicans as God sparing the poor, who normally are likely to vote Democrat, by only attacking rich Republicans who can afford all the insurance.
2004-10-18 08:57:23 AM  
Journalists are supposed to be impartial while reporting the news.

However, they also give opinions, they just need to be clearly labled as such. Hence, the editorial page.
2004-10-18 08:58:42 AM  
bondgirl -- you'll have to settle for a former Republican, who used to work right under the head of the Republican National Comittee for the State of Florida.
2004-10-18 09:04:27 AM  
I know I shouldn't get so angry. It just bothers me that people badmouth the place I know and love as home, yet have no problem coming down here for vacation, and sending their moldy parents down here to die when they hit 70.

Where's the "Alabama" tag for every time some drunken redneck livin' in a trailer marries his sister/dog/alien he saw land on his rusting Ford? Where's the NY tag for every time some homeless guy mugs an old lady on the way home from church for her 5 dollars? Of course, there aren't any. Because somehow all the bad in the world can be traced to a beautiful state full of friendly people. Keep lookin' down your nose at us New Jersey farkers, and I'll keep on smilin' when I go out to the beach and don't hafta swim in syringes.

Back to you though thethrowdown. I fully support a "Tallahassee" tag, or even better a "Miami" tag. But a large portion of Florida is much nicer than most parts of this country I've visited or lived in, and it seems kind of unfair to lump us in with this sorry excuse for a state capital, or little Havana.

And from a better news source, CNN, it's nice to see that the St. Pete Times, the city I'm from, is endorsing Kerry. Although I never really understood why newspapers feel the need to endorse anyone, it reaffirms my belief that it still is the best damn paper out there, anywhere.
Sorry for no HTML, I don't know the tags for linkey goodness.
2004-10-18 09:15:41 AM  
Jeep -- BTW -- I'm having trouble with the mods to.. They have been idiots lately.
2004-10-18 09:16:13 AM  
[image from geocities.com too old to be available]
2004-10-18 09:18:21 AM  
[image from sptimes.com too old to be available]

Either way, Bush still wins.
2004-10-18 09:39:41 AM  
Nader 2004
Nation before Party

FYI: Wynona LaDuke, Nader's running mate in 2000, just endorsed Kerry.
2004-10-18 09:44:20 AM  
I have to agree with Jeep. I live in St. Pete, near Tampa and having been all over the country, I can find few places that have a better balance of good weather (the occasional hurricane notwithstanding), low crime rate, decent traffic, a lot of stuff to do, hot women and liberal nudie bar laws. Yeah there are hicks and old people but there are hicks and old people everywhere.

I don't mind if you all bad mouth Florida and a lot of whacky shiat does go on in a lot of the state but there are parts of it that are normal. It sure beats living in some of the bigger citites where you can freeze to death while getting carjacked in the middle of gridlock.
2004-10-18 09:45:48 AM  
faethe - "A lot of people down here (Florida) are also pissed because of the Hurricane issue not being discussed. Its increasingly obvious that unless you are down here, you have no idea what is going on or how bad it really is."

Or maybe we just don't care. It's sort of like living on the North Pole and biatching about your pipes always freezing up. But maybe next year will be different. Here's hoping.

//I bet Santa has homeowners insurance for that sort of thing
2004-10-18 09:46:43 AM  
I just think it speaks volumes that so many Republicans are turning away from Bush. I know several. They don't have to vote for Kerry, they can just stay home on election day.

I'm planning on voting for Kerry myself. Why? One, Republican candidates for the House and Senate will have a better chance in 2006 running against an incumbent democrat. Two, Kerry has zero chance of pushing through any type of legislative agenda, so that's not a reason to vote for Bush. Three, Bush is a proven failure in counter-terrorism, foreign policy, and the economy; perhaps 9/11 and the recession are not his fault, but I'm not willing to take that chance. Four, Bush's post-9/11 counter terrorism net seems to catch more innocents than terrorists; i.e. it is more show than substance. Five, the absurdity of the recent tax changes: Theresa Heinz Kerry pays roughly 13% of her income in taxes (most of her income is dividends; I'm as against taxing inflationary gains as the next person, but a lower rate on all investment gains is not a solution to the inflationary gains problem); those in the 15% tax bracket are paying a marginal rate of 28% if you include Social Security/Medicare; we are now at the point where a flat tax system would *raise* taxes on the rich.

The only argument that I see in favor of voting for Bush is that he would appoint better judges. However, I don't see that as enough of an advantage to overwhelm the disadvantages.

I really think that Kerry is missing a few tricks here. As I said previously, a flat tax (loved by conservatives) would actually raise taxes on the rich (loved by liberals); as such, it would please both ends of the spectrum and leave Bush floundering; yet, Kerry is going with a more partisan tax cut rollback instead. There are three major weaknesses in the current healthcare system: insurance workers who make too much for Medicaid but who do not get benefits through their employer; insurance for the recently unemployed (yes, one can buy one's own through CORBA, but who can afford to do that? Most simply hope to avoid illness until a new job is available); pre-existing conditions from when one was unemployed or not getting benefits from one's employer. Instead of narrow solutions to these problems (support Bush's groups program; incorporate health insurance into the unemployment insurance; ban pre-existing condition clauses), Kerry advocates a nationalized system that he is not going to get.
2004-10-18 09:46:49 AM  
"Tampa Tribune joins the rest of the country in throwing up its hands and refusing to endorse a presidential candidate"

Shouldn't newspapers--oh, I dunno--be OBJECTIVE and not endorse things?
Displayed 50 of 185 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.