Talk:Citizen Change

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Based on "Get rich or die"?[edit]

I guess that "Vote or die" is based on "Get rich or die trying", but has anyone behind the slogan confirmed this? Andjam 11:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of pro-Kerry bias[edit]

While allegations of pro-Kerry bias sound plausible (though 50 cent has recently made pro-Bush comments) they should be regarded as merely allegations. Describing the evidence for the allegations may be a good idea though. Andjam 00:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my..[edit]

Dear god, is this real? America amazes me sometimes.. --^pirate 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Orborde 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this "Vote or die!" slogan threating and so against the law (or constitution) in USA? I think it would be in Europe...

Like the article says, it was hyperbolic (and pretty obviously so). It wasn't a threat, it was a warning that if Americans didn't take control of their own fate and the fate of America by voting, then people with ambitions and goals counter to the health of the country would take power, leading to the death of Americans. It was pretty blatantly anti-Bush. - Ecksem Diem 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't against the law- we hold freedom of speech as sacred in America, to an extent which Europe does not. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False Choice[edit]

I think the whole "Vote or Die" campaign was idiotic but is it really an example of false choice?

The vote or die command doesn't imply that you can only vote for Republican or Democrat. It doesn't exclude the endless amount of alternative parties such as the Green Party or the Libertarians.

Maybe these activists should address the major problem of our election system which is the myth of a bipartisan system. George Washington warned against the dangers of political parties and refused to belong to any one party. People need to be informed that they have a choice besides Democrat and Republican which has always been the choice between the lesser of two evils.

    - It's a false choice because you are not limited to only two options - vote or die.  Dope. 71.240.219.38 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:VoteorDie.PNG[edit]

Image:VoteorDie.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

The general feel of this article is that it is against the campaign. The main article body focuses highly upon the parodies of the organization, and then there is an opposition section which further seems to discredit them. Despite the fact that the general consensus is that the campaign is really stupid, Wikipedia is an informational source only, and should not express opinions. 82.5.57.238 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parodies and "false choice" rhetoric are both valid parts of this article. Wikipedia doesn't simply remove information because there is too much of it on one side, it only removes the information is there is a perceived bias in its tone. I don't feel that this is the case here.Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

killings[edit]

so if you dont vote will they try to kill you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.80.155 (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, a few people in my family got murdered from this barbaric campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.216.187 (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Nuke Ad[edit]

Similarities, am I right? Cept the other side this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]