Thus spake sunder (sunder@sunder.net) [26/04/04 13:38]: : >Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a : >/good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser : >evil : >than the current president. : : THAT, ultimately is the meta-point. You shouldn't have to vote for the : lesser evil, but when your choice is so vastly limited, why even bother : voting? Okay, you've completely missed my point. I'll repeat it one last time, then I shall contribute no more to this inane diatribe: I don't give a flying fuck who you vote for, who the options are, what you think of them, or even if they're convicted drunk drivers hell-bent on converting the world to their belief system (...). I was pointing out that your one presented argument (in the e-mail I read) was completely not true. Al Gore did *not* claim to invent the Internet, and to use that false argument as a reason to dislike him is to be either purposefully dishonest, or honestly misled. I was simply correcting your facts, and suggesting you check them out before you believe everything you see/read in mass media. The rest of your arguments are simply your opinions, and all I have to say is: what little you knew of Bush and Gore /before/ the elections has no bearing on the amount of information available about them. Their histories (criminal, educational, political, and family) were all very publicly available. Just because you (and, dare I say, a vast majority of the American public) didn't want to do your research on your candidates, does not mean that the facts weren't there. You're also sadly, sadly mistaken in saying that there's only two options. I guess it shows that you didn't vote. - Damian