i found this so far:

Democrats lead in early-absentee voting

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2004/...sp5=RGJ.com&sp6=news&sp7=local_news

any more updates

i voted for a real president

i like soup

i had tomato soup for lunch and it was like throwing salt in the wounds (of my sore throat)

the daily show for a whole f'n hour!

thank you, oh wise cnn.com

heh

I heard that CNN was a Democratically biased station, and that Fox news is Republican biased.
I never knew that, but Fox news is way clearer on my TV, so thats what I watch.

I thought cnn was actually owned by a republican guy?
I've never seen CNN lean anyway except on the side of caution.

Fox really does lean way right.
NPR leans way left.

i'm left handed

I'm right handed, but when that one gets tired I use the left.

you should get a girl to use her mouth, that way your hands will not get tired

CNN is part of the public uber-media empire of AOL Time-Warner these days. It was started by the pretty damn liberal Ted Turner, under the blanket of his old company, which of course had TBS, TNT and such. He took a beating in the sell-off I think, when AOL T-W stock took a big dive, and couldn't keep up with his pledge to give $1 billion to the UN (? I think it was them).

Fox is public I think, but Rupert Murdoch still holds controlling shares, the only outwardly Republican "news" executive (and I believe the only Gentile, now that Turner is out of the game).

im good with my hands...

succubus said:

me too!

I was left handed once, but I become right handed.

dreadkill said:


we rule!

Someone on my myspace list sent this bulletin:

Why Badnarik?

As a Libertarian who opposed the Iraq war and the USA PATRIOT Act, I am voting for Libertarian Michael Badnarik. Those of us who opposed the war and the policies of this Justice Department have little reason to vote for John Kerry, who also supported the war and the PATRIOT Act. Kerry has even intimated that he would maintain the occupation in Iraq for a longer period than the Bush administration would. A Kerry victory would mean little for social liberals.
At the same time, those of us who are concerned about federal spending have no reason to fear a Kerry victory, despite the fact that Kerry's domestic policy proposals are mostly worse than those of George W. Bush. Federal spending rose faster under Bush than it did under Clinton, proving once again the virtues of divided government. A President Kerry would be unable to pass his more radical proposals in the face of Republican congressional opposition. A Bush victory would mean little for fiscal conservatives.
Whether Bush or Kerry wins is of marginal importance, and it is more appropriate in this election to cast a vote for long-term, fundamental change, which growing third-party support could ultimately effect.

succubus said:

indubitably!

^ and let me guess, your In Love again^

Who me?

Joe/NotCommon said:

4 years ago I would've agreed with that. Not this fucking year.

Whether one of us votes for Kerry or Bush won't make any difference regardless of the state we live in.

updates........

i have a completely off topic update for succubus, that girl steph is the same we were both speaking of, i saw her sat night, she says whats up and sounded like she wanted to speak to you

heh
cool i will give her a call!
thanks Keith

Josh_Martin said:

Well, 2000 definitely had everyone thinking twice about that...

But in a state that hasn't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate in who knows how many years (at least since Eisenhower), I think it's all the more important to use the vote for a 3rd party, to make up for those in swing states who had no choice but to vote for the lesser of the two dweebles...