Hey Redshift?? WTF?, "Pelican Parts Boycott: in progress." Options

[Rusty]

Did I miss something?

[Mockmaw]

I like how this thread has turned into a general forum for political commentary. Alright, I'll bite (or comment on a few things that I've read)..

Redshift: The use of the term "Moslem Terrorist" is not racist, but terribly inappropriate for very specific historical and cultural reasons. I can back this up, let me know if you care for me to explain.

Hawktel: For that matter, the term "Moslem Fundamentalist" is also an inappropriate term, since the words Fundamentalist and Fundamentalism come from a very specific _Protestant_ history that American/European's are familiar with; because of this, it's easy for us to tack on the word Fundamentalist. Since the Islamic religion, Muslim society, and Middle Eastern politics have not branched from "our" Protestant history, it's inapproprite and incorrect to use a Protestant word to identify Islamic people. I can explain more if you care to hear.

Brad: Do you recognize the fact that your choice to not vote essentially gives you no reason whatsoever to bitch? Funded by money or not, the politicians in this country are still elected through votes. Dollars may pay for votes, but those politicians still need people to enter the actual booth and punch the actual card. By not voting, you've, in a way, endorsed every politician and given every one that's in office their seat. Our government system functions on the idea that one person can't make a difference whatsoever, but the collective people can.. the system was designed from the very beginning to function like this. Your decision to not vote, like so many others in the country, is what makes the system not work like we want it to.

Alfred was a dick.. there's a difference between free-speech and harassment. He crossed the line, he's not with us. That's all I have to say.

On third parties: unfortunately, third-parties screw everything up in our system. Because of the way that we hold elections, third parties will always take votes away from the two candidates who are most alike.. in the last election, Nader took many votes away from Gore but very few from Bush. Bush won the election, but the overall popular sentiment across the country leaned a lot more to the left. A competitive third party candidate will always take votes away from the Republicans if conservative, or the Democrats if liberal. Makes you wonder why one of the two major parties doesn't fund a third party candidate that will take votes away from the opposing major party, haha. Now France has got it right in my opinion. They hold two major elections.. the first one is amongst all of the candidates, here the citizens can vote for anyone that they'd like (their ideological choice, if you will).. the top two candidates then have a 'runoff' final election (this is where the citizens can make their 'practical' choice). I don't like how our political system, with two major parties which ultimately run two very moderate candidates, almost force people to make the decision about 'the lesser of two evils', not their true ideological preference.

KaptKaos: I am vehemently opposed to vouchers, but don't have the energy to fight the good fight on that one..

And finally Red: if the boys over at PP actually cut a thread post that was anti-American/anti-Bush, I'll be more than happy to join your boycott.