How will you celebrate when John Kerry wins the election?
I will be one happy Leftist and then I'll spend the next 4 years not being worried that my constitutional rights are being erased.
"Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it's idiot..."
Oh and when Kerry wins we can have multiple parties run in 4 years so all of you Nader fans will be happy. In fact there will be no excuses for not voting since just about every paradigm will be running for President. I can't stand hearing people saying that Democrats and Republicans are the same. Bullshit. These same people just bitch about the problems in America but don't want to help change them. C'mon folks you have the power to speak so be heard!
[QUOTE=Davros]I will be one happy Leftist and then I'll spend the next 4 years not being worried that my constitutional rights are being erased.
"Somewhere in Texas a village is missing it's idiot..."[/QUOTE]
Is it missing the idiot who doesn't know that "it's" means "it is"?
This is a really good idea.
[QUOTE=meatthinker]Is it missing the idiot who doesn't know that "it's" means "it is"?[/QUOTE]
heh. nice.
OMG, he made a common grammar mistake!! GET 'IM!!!!!!111
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
[QUOTE=Ozymandias]OMG, he made a common grammar mistake!! GET 'IM!!!!!!111[/QUOTE]
calling the kettle black, no?
No.
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
ok, you're right, that was the wrong cliche.
Oh no I made a typo i must be punished. What's worse : a typo on a message board or lying to people at the expense of thousands of lives?
a typo on a message board.
[QUOTE=Davros]Oh and when Kerry wins we can have multiple parties run in 4 years so all of you Nader fans will be happy. In fact there will be no excuses for not voting since just about every paradigm will be running for President. I can't stand hearing people saying that Democrats and Republicans are the same. Bullshit. These same people just bitch about the problems in America but don't want to help change them. C'mon folks you have the power to speak so be heard![/QUOTE]
Democrats and Republicans are both big money whores indifferent to the plight of those not rich enough to fund their race to the White House. The candidates who are from similar backgrounds as the majority of Americans either completely sell out their values and soul to get into the political clique, or they're stomped out by the big dogs like John Kerry and George W. Bush. You know the reason a third party candidate doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning? Because zealots like Nader and Perrot aside, most third party candidates don't have the financial support to withstand Republican and Democratic campaign onslaughts let alone voice their positions and qualifications. Not to mention that it will be a cold day in hell before you actually see someone like Nader finally be allowed to participate in the televised Presidential debates.
the only difference i can see is that democrats honestly believe they know what the average american needs, but are in truth completely misguided, whereas the republicans say they know what the average american needs but in truth couldn't give a shit.
i have never heard anything more accurately put then bobcat goldthwait saying trying to choose between which republican an democrat to vote for is like going into a porno shop and trying to decide which dildo is going to hurt the least when you jam it up your ass
golden.
[QUOTE=Davros]Oh no I made a typo i must be punished. What's worse : a typo on a message board or lying to people at the expense of thousands of lives?[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://biografieonline.it/img/bio/Jim_Morrison.jpg[/IMG][I]"No, I like my way of saying it better."[/I]
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
[QUOTE=angusbeef123]It's ok if you don't like Kerry anymore than Bush, but don't pretend that you won't feel at least some relief and comfort if Kerry wins.[/QUOTE]
I'll do the pretending then. I won't feel one iota more relieved if Kerry wins. They are not even two sides of a coin, they are two wrinkles on the rim of a coin. Either one wins, we lose.
I know, I'm a fucking idealist, but there's no government like no government.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
way to use the stooopid tagline from a stooopid movie to make your point. (ie: Either one wins, we lose*)
(*note: not exact, its like a paraphrase or something)
If the past 4 years have taught us ANYTHING AT ALL, it's how much it matters who's in office. If you can look at the damage Bush's Idiot Son has done to this country right after we'd finally crawled out of our Nixon Hole and still shrug your shoulders when the animal is finally removed from power then you have no business voting in the first place.
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
[QUOTE=alex cassun]way to use the stooopid tagline from a stooopid movie to make your point. (ie: Either one wins, we lose*)
(*note: not exact, its like a paraphrase or something)[/QUOTE]
What movie, because I wasn't paraphrasing?
I've been a registered Libertarian for 7 years, been voting that way for 15 (Missouri doesn't register you with 'party'). I've even run for office on the LP ticket. So damning the Republocrats and Depublicans is almsot reflexive at this point.
As you know (because I've seen you on other threads that touch on this), I believe the mainstream parties are utterly useless to any ordinary citizen, no matter what their line is. Theyr'e just asking if you'd like plague or anthrax and letting you hope that your HMO approves an antibiotic that cures it. If you live, they expect credit, if you die, they deny blame.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
[QUOTE=Robin Goodfellow]You know the reason a third party candidate doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning?[/QUOTE]
Because people aren't used to voting third-party. There's no support base of independent Senators, Representatives or Governors; largely because of buffoons like Nader who are arrogant enough to think that they can start at the top.
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
Before Ross Perot, the LP was assembling tickets from County Commisioner to President. It doesn't matter, people chicken out and vote for the mainstream because they don't want to 'throw their vote away.'
But think about Nixon through Bush II, try and find a high point. For me, Reagan maybe sticks up a little bit, but not enough to notice.
So you're really throwing your vote away if you vote for the established Donkey/Elephant system.
Nader was just a Democrat who was too far left to get the nomination. G.W. was just an opportunist who managed to kill of legit opposition from Ron Paul (who didn't run) and Phil Gramm (who did), and got lucky. His brother being Florida's governor didnt' necessarily make it, but it didn't hurt.
Would it be better if Gore had won? No, absolutely not. Might not have been worse, but read "Earth in the Balance," Gore either had a moron ghost-write it or he's an idiot.
For that matter, third party candiates have manged a million or more votes going back to Dick Gregory (who never denied inhalation), the problem lies in people being a bunch of pussies who think Coke and Pepsi amount to a choice.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
[QUOTE=Chixulub]But think about Nixon through Bush II, try and find a high point. For me, Reagan maybe sticks up a little bit, but not enough to notice.
Would it be better if Gore had won? No, absolutely not. Might not have been worse[/QUOTE]
Well, see, you've just outed yourself as a crackhead to prefer Reagan's decade of deficit and record crime to the record [B]surplus[/B] (imagine that) that President Clinton created. Ya know, the one that Bush's Idiot Son pissed away in his very first year in office through ricockulous "tax rebates" - glorified vote buying.
Do you actually believe that Gore was going to piss away our entire surplus and take us RIGHT BACK to a deficit? Was he going to declare unprovoked war on a sovereign nation just because he could? If the answer is anything but yes to either question then he would have been infinitely superior to Bush's Idiot Son as President.
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
[url]www.dictionary.com[/url]
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
i was just confused, its been so long since i've heard that word. i mean, three years at least.
[QUOTE=Ozymandias]Well, see, you've just outed yourself as a crackhead to prefer Reagan's decade of deficit and record crime to the record [B]surplus[/B] (imagine that) that President Clinton created. Ya know, the one that Bush's Idiot Son pissed away in his very first year in office through ricockulous "tax rebates" - glorified vote buying.
Do you actually believe that Gore was going to piss away our entire surplus and take us RIGHT BACK to a deficit? Was he going to declare unprovoked war on a sovereign nation just because he could? If the answer is anything but yes to either question then he would have been infinitely superior to Bush's Idiot Son as President.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think Clinton can take credit for the drop in crime or the budget surplus in the 90's, which was actually caused by an irrationally exhuberant stock market bubble as much as anything. And as far as the deficits go, the purse is controlled by Congress. And it turns out, no matter which party is in power, they spend more money every year. In 2000 when the stock market dropped by like 40%, Congress was still increasing funding across the board. That's like hitting the casino after getting laid off your job. It doesn't work.
And yes, I think Gore would have been an even bigger disaster than Bush, but don't for a second think that translates into any affection for W. Both are spendthrift, big-government assholes at least as wicked as LBJ or Nixon.
For Reagan, I'll just say if we put him on the $20, at least we wouldn't have a genocidal maniac who exponentially increased graft at the Presidential level, illegally annexed Florida, who had managed to surivive three duels before he was even called on by his nation to kill as many Indians and British soldiers as possible.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
[QUOTE=Ozymandias]Well, see, you've just outed yourself as a crackhead to prefer Reagan's decade of deficit and record crime to the record [B]surplus[/B] (imagine that) that President Clinton created. Ya know, the one that Bush's Idiot Son pissed away in his very first year in office through ricockulous "tax rebates" - glorified vote buying.
Do you actually believe that Gore was going to piss away our entire surplus and take us RIGHT BACK to a deficit? Was he going to declare unprovoked war on a sovereign nation just because he could? If the answer is anything but yes to either question then he would have been infinitely superior to Bush's Idiot Son as President.[/QUOTE]
Oh, and as far as buying votes, that's what all federal spending is. At least a tax refund is only bribing people with money they've earned for themselves. Kind of like a Mafia Don buying you lunch with money he's extorted from you in a protectin racket. You give him $100 a week, he buys you a $12 steak once a month.
As far as the fall in crime in the 90's, the likeliest explanation is regrettably Roe V. Wade. I'm not in favor of sucking babies into sinks, but legalizing the practice caused a major fall off in births in the so-called 'at risk' demographics. The really bad part about that is that poverty doesn't by itself cause crime, but the eugenicists will slowly-but-surely work that into their campaign to keep the ovens on at Planned Parenthood.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
[QUOTE=Chixulub]
For Reagan, I'll just say if we put him on the $20, at least we wouldn't have a genocidal maniac who exponentially increased graft at the Presidential level, illegally annexed Florida, who had managed to surivive three duels before he was even called on by his nation to kill as many Indians and British soldiers as possible.[/QUOTE]
Reagan spent all that money on idiot programs like SDI. How can a liberitarian support any President that would spend money so carelessly?
Not to mention the meddling they did with third world countries in Central America. I thought Liberitarians were for small government not a overreaching Super Power that feels the need to encroach in every single countries affairs for our business elite.
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." Albert Einstein
[QUOTE=Ozymandias]Because people aren't used to voting third-party. There's no support base of independent Senators, Representatives or Governors; largely because of buffoons like Nader who are arrogant enough to think that they can start at the top.[/QUOTE]
No, its because the political parties in America always pretend to associate themselves with or usurp the ideals of popular third parties in order to get more votes and stamp out potential competition. Not to mention witch hunts like the McCarthy era. Its nothing new. The Democrats and Republicans have both been doing at least since the mid to late 1800s when they stamped out the Populist Party.
[QUOTE=DrGonzoHST]Reagan spent all that money on idiot programs like SDI. How can a liberitarian support any President that would spend money so carelessly?
Not to mention the meddling they did with third world countries in Central America. I thought Liberitarians were for small government not a overreaching Super Power that feels the need to encroach in every single countries affairs for our business elite.[/QUOTE]
For the record, "support" is a strong word for my feelings about Reagan.
As far as SDI goes, that has nothing to do with the social spending side, most of which is mandated by the legislation creating it (hence 'entitlement' spending). And Reagan was plenty reckless with domestic discretionary spending.
Yes, the LP platform is isolationist, and to a great extent so am I. In fairness to the meddling of Reagan AND every other Cold War President, from both parties, that spending was a direct reaction to Soviet support of Communist governments. All Presidents from WWII to the fall of the Soviet empire made the mistake of assuming that your enemy's enemy is your friend.
For that matter, such short sighted thinking probably helped reinforce our apparently unretractable policy of blindly propping up Israel without regard to what attrocities it's government commits--until the early 90's, the PLO had Soviet support that both major parties in the U.S. felt had to be countered at all costs. The costs include Al Queda.
Don't paint me as a huge Reagan fan just because I won't condemn him more harshly than Andrew Jackson, FDR or Nixon, all of whom were infinitely more harmful human beings and Presidents.
The tricky thing about the isolationist thing is what do you do with a Hitler? For that matter, Saddam Hussein might have control of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with Iran to follow back in the early 90's. How much would have been enough for him? Would have have been happy without a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?
So yeah, Libertarians are isolationists, but at some point you have to recognize that things that affect your national security go on outside your borders, and decide when to do something about it. But many of those things are generally unlikely to come about in the absence of an imperial power such as the U.S.S.R. and/or the United States.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
Libertarians as a group do WAY too much 'splaining. Why you got to explain it so damn much?
This is a really good idea.
[QUOTE=meatthinker]Libertarians as a group do WAY too much 'splaining. Why you got to explain it so damn much?[/QUOTE]
Because people don't get it.
Coke vs. Pepsi is not a fucking choice. The Democrats and Republicans are just cages looking for birds.
Orwell got it, and he was a fucking socialist, but he didn't have the built-in disadvantage of an American public shool education and cable TV.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
[QUOTE=Chixulub]Because people don't get it.
Coke vs. Pepsi is not a fucking choice. The Democrats and Republicans are just cages looking for birds.
Orwell got it, and he was a fucking socialist, but he didn't have the built-in disadvantage of an American public shool education and cable TV.[/QUOTE]
there is more than dem, rep AND libertarian.
some of us just don't need to explain every thing out as much, like meat thinker said.
Yeah, there's the Green Party, U.S. Peace & Justice Party, American Taxpayer's Union, Socialist Workers, Temperance Union, everything you can imagine. In 1992, the last time I pulled official numbers (by writing for them, they don't show up in the news), close to 200 guys had filed for President.
One was even a 'Republican' running independently who's platform was a hand-written 200 page poem that he planned to read aloud in the oval office that would bring about world peace. He wore a coon-skin hat.
So yeah, I don't care if you vote for my third party. If you think I'm full of shit, vote for your own. There really are choices out there.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
[QUOTE=Chixulub]...
So yeah, I don't care if you vote for my third party. If you think I'm full of shit, vote for your own. There really are choices out there.[/QUOTE]
good good, i feel the same way. i'm not promoting a certain viewpoint to get votes for that political party. i just want people to understand they have a choice, and that not everything that's told to them by the big 2 is necessarily true or all there is to choose from.
at the same time, i have no qualms with arguing/discussing my view point, afterall, that's how adaption, change, and an up-to-date society come about.
[QUOTE=Chixulub]Because people don't get it.
Coke vs. Pepsi is not a fucking choice. The Democrats and Republicans are just cages looking for birds.
Orwell got it, and he was a fucking socialist, but he didn't have the built-in disadvantage of an American public shool education and cable TV.[/QUOTE]
Q.E.D motherfucker!
This is a really good idea.
I think some people share the delusion that if you explain something enough, that will make people believe it, but it doesn't work that way.
This is a really good idea.
[QUOTE=meatthinker]Q.E.D motherfucker![/QUOTE]
eh? what are you providing quod erat demonstrandum for? what did he say that proved what? i'm lost on this post.
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]eh? what are you providing quod erat demonstrandum for? what did he say that proved what? i'm lost on this post.[/QUOTE]
He continued his explaining.
This is a really good idea.
As a native of Puerto Rico I can die for the U.S. in any of it imperial...err...wars from democracy but can't vote for "el presidente." I sure do hope Kerry wins and if he does my faith in the American people will be restored.
[COLOR=DarkGreen]"Those who fear the dark have never seen what the light can do."[/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Gaeasoldier]As a native of Puerto Rico I can die for the U.S. in any of it imperial...err...wars from democracy but can't vote for "el presidente." I sure do hope Kerry wins and if he does my faith in the American people will be restored.[/QUOTE]
My wife is Dominican and she says we all a bunch of whimps for not having a revolution over the 2000 election.
This is a really good idea.
[QUOTE=meatthinker]He continued his explaining.[/QUOTE]
gotcha
i'd like to run with your original thought "Why you got to explain it so damn much?" if you don't mind.
really it's a pretty valid point the more you think about it. if you really really have to keep explaning your political ideal (be you republican, libertarian or communist) then there's really something wrong with your ideal. Sure if it's a new idea (which republican, libertarian and communism each are not) then you'll have to do that for a bit, but if your political ideal/party has been around a while, is fairly known (at least by persons who pay attention), then you should not have to do so much explaning on simple ideas like "healthcare" or "personal freedom" or even "government existing, but not really doing anything". so if you think about it, maybe it's just too complicated of an idea to discuss, let alone implement? just a thought...
[QUOTE=meatthinker]My wife is Dominican and she says we all a bunch of whimps for not having a revolution over the 2000 election.[/QUOTE]
Its because the only people who own guns voted for Bush. A bleeding heart liberal revolution? I think we've seen that already. Very emotional, but not very effecitve.
[IMG]http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/brinkley/3651/photos/seventies/Kent%20State.jpg[/IMG]
Actually, those kids who ate lead at Kent State probably did more to advance the liberal agenda than a bunch of armed lunatics ever could have. Even the Archie Bunkers of the world could see that the National Guard had cross the line there.
As far as an armed citizenry goes, the Second Amendment as currently interpreted by the courts leaves little doubt about the outcome of an armed insurrection, unless you can get military units to defect to the rebel cause. You saw Iraq, right? That army, both last year and in 1992 was much better armed than the NRA ever dreamed of being.
Also, the 1776 American Revolution was somewhat unique in uprisings of its type: it didn't immediately replace the overthrown regime with something more brutal and oppressive. Very few examples in history live up to that, as imperfectly as the Republic was designed, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and just about every other 'revolution' in the past two hundred years has resulted in a substantially worse set of rulers.
When we call soccer 'football' the terrorists have won.
[QUOTE=trypdwyre]gotcha
i'd like to run with your original thought "Why you got to explain it so damn much?" if you don't mind.
really it's a pretty valid point the more you think about it. if you really really have to keep explaning your political ideal (be you republican, libertarian or communist) then there's really something wrong with your ideal. Sure if it's a new idea (which republican, libertarian and communism each are not) then you'll have to do that for a bit, but if your political ideal/party has been around a while, is fairly known (at least by persons who pay attention), then you should not have to do so much explaning on simple ideas like "healthcare" or "personal freedom" or even "government existing, but not really doing anything". so if you think about it, maybe it's just too complicated of an idea to discuss, let alone implement? just a thought...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, partly that is what I was getting at. However, there's also a second part about what makes effective leadership and winning people over to your side. As long as you frame things in terms of how you are "right" and the other people are "wrong" all you do is preach to the choir and drive the people who disagree with you further and further away. You may get solidarity, unity, but you will never increase your numbers. 99% of writing about atheism turns me off for this same reason.
The more important question is [I]What does it make possible?[/I] To win converts, you also need to have vision and be able to speak to what is possible and available from your way, and not just go on and on about how your way is "right" and the other way is "wrong." Possibility can transcend boundaries. Explanation solidifies boundaries.
The third part is an issue of paying attention to how other people are listening to you or not. You need to create other people listening to what you are saying. If people aren't listening, at some point it's pretty pointless to keep talking. I'm not saying don't talk, I'm saying find the listening, and respect the listening.
This is a really good idea.
[QUOTE=Chixulub]Actually, those kids who ate lead at Kent State probably did more to advance the liberal agenda than a bunch of armed lunatics ever could have. Even the Archie Bunkers of the world could see that the National Guard had cross the line there.
As far as an armed citizenry goes, the Second Amendment as currently interpreted by the courts leaves little doubt about the outcome of an armed insurrection, unless you can get military units to defect to the rebel cause. You saw Iraq, right? That army, both last year and in 1992 was much better armed than the NRA ever dreamed of being.
Also, the 1776 American Revolution was somewhat unique in uprisings of its type: it didn't immediately replace the overthrown regime with something more brutal and oppressive. Very few examples in history live up to that, as imperfectly as the Republic was designed, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and just about every other 'revolution' in the past two hundred years has resulted in a substantially worse set of rulers.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they did a lot to advance the liberal agenda. They got over four years of Nixon followed by Gerald Ford followed by a short, ineffective stint by Jimmy Carter...hmmmm....followed by twelve years of a Republican White House and total national selling out of the ideals the sixties were supposedly founded on.
In any case, I agree that an armed insurrection would be virtually inconceivable in the America of today...even more given that the majority of Gore supporters -- and I'm not talking about "I'm a Democrat, I voted for Gore" or "I hate Bush I voted for Gore" Gore supporters, but people who believe "Four years of Al Gore is what this nation really, truely needed" Gore supporters -- don't even know an assault rifle from a pellet gun.
[QUOTE=Popcultjunkie]ya done did it...ya just jinxed him..[/QUOTE]
Oh, crap. My bad.
Sorry, people. It's all my fault.
You will never be famous.
[QUOTE=angusbeef123]Oh, crap. My bad.
Sorry, people. It's all my fault.[/QUOTE]
Bet ya feel fucking stupid now, eh? Don't worry, it's the internet, no one cares.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/graeme2004/turksmako.jpg[/IMG]
[SIZE=1]Every word is an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.[/SIZE]
Well, I know you don't care. You don't have deal with bush like I do since you live in Scotland.
Scotland doesn't have a president, they are controlled by a Council of Nine, lead by Emporer Kree. All hail Kree!
You will never be famous.
I plan to take part in the insuing riots that will occur when yet another election will be taken away by The Supreme Court. Not that it does really matter though, I mean Liberal, Conservative, they're just two sides of the same coin. They are both only going to care for the special interest groups that got them in office. Well maybe Kery might not get us int oas many wars, but anyway (Shit I completly changed my point like 3 times) I guess the liberals are just a little too conservitive for me.