Hollywood's here for you Sheeple

Welcome to the VOX world. Glad to have you. The quality of this article is very good. Keep 'em coming.

Welcome!! Very grateful to find you here on Vox. We could use some insight from one who has been there, and can make us laugh at the same time!!

welcome: FTA ( don't ask what FTA means -assume the worse!)

Laughter is the best medicine..

Now VOTE: 3rd party ( Like Chuck Baldwin or other.... )

From the IPR

"How can you throw your vote away?" That's a question most third-party
advocates and supporters of independent candidates hear quite often.
Some of my friends are asking it of me, and I'm sure many of you are
hearing it as well. And it's a question I have asked of myself, and of
others, over the years. This is my answer.

As readers know, I try to be a realist and a pragmatist, so first, let
me concede some points:
# There is far more than "a dime's worth of difference" between the
Democratic and Republican national tickets this year, especially
considering that the philosophical direction of the Supreme Court for
the next quarter-century or more could be determined during the next
presidential administration. To pretend that there would be no
difference between President McCain and President Obama is myopic at
best, and willfully ignorant at worst.
# Third-party candidates have tipped the balance in key elections
recently. It is probable that if Ralph Nader had not been on Florida's
ballot in 2000, Al Gore would have become president in January 2001.
It is also possible, though harder to be sure of, that Ross Perot's
1992 candidacy tipped that election to Bill Clinton.
# It is highly probable that this year's presidential election will be
as close as the last two. As of this writing, Electoral-Vote. com has
the GOP ticket ahead 257-247 in the electoral vote, RealClearPolitics
has the GOP ahead 227-207, and Zogby has the Democrats ahead 234-226.
# It is also a near-certainty that a third-party or independent
candidate will not be elected president in 2008. While there are three
fairly well-known independent or third-party candidates this year —
Libertarian Bob Barr, Green Cynthia McKinney, and Nader — none seem
likely to do much better than 1,000,000 votes, if that. (The
lesser-known Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, is also
running a significant national campaign.)

So, it seems logical to conclude that voting for someone other than
John McCain or Barack Obama this year would be reckless, dangerous,
and irresponsible, right? Well, not necessarily.

Like many who do not plan to vote for either major party ticket, I
have a preference as to which I'd rather see win (or, more accurately,
which I want to lose more). I'm not oblivious to the differences
between the two, or to the fact that the candidate I plan to vote for
will not win. But perversely, because our system is biased against
alternative candidates, I have the luxury of being able to vote for one.

The Electoral College system makes the emergence of two dominant
parties inevitable, as does our non-parliamentary legislative
structure — where majorities are required, two forces capable of
competing for "50 percent plus one" will emerge. But two centuries of
gerrymandering and cultural and demographic changes have left many
states one-party enterprises, at least on the presidential level.

To be more blunt, if you live in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, or Wyoming, you can vote for
whoever the heck you want to — each is leaning so heavily to either
McCain or Obama that you are free to vote your conscience. And if you
are not one of the 120 million-odd Americans who lives in one of those
places, you may still be in a state where the outcome will not be that
close; that's actually a cautious list.

Okay, you may say, but that does not mean a third-party vote makes
more sense than a vote for a major party candidate. But perhaps it
does. For the folks in those states where the result is a
near-certainty, the choice is not between a "real" vote and a "wasted"
vote. Rather, it is between a superfluous vote for or against a sure
winner, or a vote that sends a message. In California in 2004, for
example, Libertarian U.S. Senate nominee Jim Gray, a Superior Court
judge who opposes the War on Drugs, received more than 216,000 votes —
not enough to sway the election, but enough to send a strong message.

At the same time, though, only about 46,000 Californians voted for the
Libertarian presidential nominee, Michael Badnarik — even though John
Kerry defeated George W. Bush in the state by more than one million
votes. That means there were 170,000 Gray voters who could have voted
for Badnarik without having any impact on the electoral vote
allocation. And how many more libertarian- minded Kerry and Bush voters
"wasted their votes" by making Kerry's margin one vote larger or smaller?

Far from being a "waste", if you live in a deep-red or deep-blue
state, casting a vote for an alternative candidate may be a way to
have your cake and eat it, too: to vote your beliefs, indicate your
displeasure with the two-party system, and send a message — without
the fear of swinging the election to the greater of two evils.

:)

Nice to hear a Conservative voice coming from Hollywierd.

Welcome aboard,and keep Up the creative work.

Dan

Amen.

Does it bother anyone else that Obama's mother was white, therefore he is half white, not to mention that his white grandparents helped to raise him---yet he calls himself only black? How racist is THAT? So, since he was born of his mother's womb and she was white, I'm going to say that he's 51% WHITE, and I'm still not voting for his scary, dangerous, Communist white ass!