Vote

Vote

Joined: August 10th, 2004, 6:40 pm

August 28th, 2004, 7:34 pm #1

Between the candadtes bush,kerry, nader, badnarik or Bandwagon who would vote for
Quote
Like
Share

Wayne
Wayne

August 28th, 2004, 7:52 pm #2

When I was in college, many years ago, there was a joke going around that a certain professor was going to be replaced. When the day came, his replacement was a soft buzzer. It wasn't loud enough to keep you awake, and didn't provide any information.

I have started comparing candidates to a soft buzzer. Would the country be better off with this candidate or with a soft buzzer? This year, I think that a soft buzzer would be better for the country than any of the candidates on offer. The bills congress passed well before the end of a session would pass for lack of a veto, but those at the end would be rejected for lack of a signature. Most last minute legislation is bad enought to need vetoing so this sounds good to me. There wouldn't be anyone in the position to start a war, although the defensive functions of the military would be intact. This also sounds good to me.

So what do you think. Would you vote for a soft buzzer?
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 28th, 2004, 9:48 pm #3

Between the candadtes bush,kerry, nader, badnarik or Bandwagon who would vote for
I think it's best we avoid politics here except when related to breast freedom issues.
Quote
Like
Share

Rusty
Rusty

August 28th, 2004, 11:33 pm #4

I'll second that. Any political discussion should be related to the main focus of the forum.
Quote
Share

michaela
michaela

August 29th, 2004, 12:17 am #5

Yep! I was going to say that I'd vote for any candidate who's wife would do this... and then I was going to insert a photo of myself riding my bike topfree...but Peter had to work again today and we didn't get a picture. sorry folks. I think he gets a couple of days off the beginning of the week. But wouldn't that be an interesting reason to vote for someone?
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 29th, 2004, 12:40 am #6

I'll second that. Any political discussion should be related to the main focus of the forum.
Yes there are plenty of places to talk politics on the web. And things are so polarized in the country now that it just gets everyone's dander up. I think BFF can do without that.
Quote
Like
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 29th, 2004, 12:49 am #7

Yep! I was going to say that I'd vote for any candidate who's wife would do this... and then I was going to insert a photo of myself riding my bike topfree...but Peter had to work again today and we didn't get a picture. sorry folks. I think he gets a couple of days off the beginning of the week. But wouldn't that be an interesting reason to vote for someone?
Yeah wouldn't it be great to have a bra-free candidate or even a bra-free "first lady"?

I remember what an impact Jackie Kennedy had on fashion getting women out of the long stodgy styles of the '50s.

Ofcourse, with the current political climate the chances of that are from zero to zilch.
Quote
Like
Share

meredith
meredith

August 29th, 2004, 12:58 pm #8

I remember quite a few photos of Jackie Kennedy in which it was obvious that she was not wearing a bra. In addition, of course, there were the photos of her sunbathing nude.
Quote
Share

peter
peter

August 29th, 2004, 1:52 pm #9

I too have that recollection, I think it was well past the White House years though.
Quote
Share

Joined: April 11th, 2004, 7:40 pm

August 30th, 2004, 1:32 pm #10

Still we need good examples, and leadership, and many people admired Jaqueline K.

It gets away from this concept of braless means loose morals and trampy behaviour.

But why should a presidential candidate be a man Michaela - she could have a top-free cycling partner too?

<font color=”551188” face="Helvetica"> Michael </font>
[color=blue" face="Helvetica]”Just Do It!”[/color]
Quote
Like
Share