| Author |
Message |
    
Tx05xb12s
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:10 pm: | 
|
Though I recognize we've got it pretty good in the grand scheme of things, I always vote 3rd party because I refuse to pick the best of the worst. At the state and local levels, I pretty much ignore the party and vote for the man whose convictions most closely match my own. Libertarianism does sound good in principle to me too, but I don't always vote for their party. I thought Perot would have been a good President and Friedman would have made a good Governor for Texas. At least they had their own agenda and wanted to make big changes for what looked like to be the better. |
Buellshyter
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:25 pm: |
|
I personally have felt in the recent years that the majority of the country is a lot more to the right than people might think.
Shoot, not in Maryland or most of the eastern states. Here in Maryland they just threw out a Republican Governor with a 60% approval rating for no reason at all other then he is not a Democrat. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Since I live in the Imperial State of New York, my presidential vote is BEST used on 3rd party candidates, as the electoral vote is going to go Democrat, Period.
I voted for the communist party candidate for Governor some years back..... don't get upset, they had no chance & it was Grandpa Munster. The last (governor) election, I voted maryjane reform party. Gotta keep the 3rd parties on the ballot.
In the Imperial State, both majors have a lock on nominations, and if you are not part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution. They won't let you play.
I do, however, have some small say in primaries. So, I sign up for the party I most want to influence, for each cycle.
Any opinions/guesses which party will be best to be "in" for the 2008 primaries? Really, I want to know if voting for (say for example only ) Newt, or Obama, is the most useful.
Social liberal, fiscal conservative, hawk, pro freedom/responsibility, constitutionalist. That's a thumbnail version of my views. |
Xl1200r
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:38 pm: |
|
Mark,
All kidding aside, the argument that you put forth is a logical fallacy called a Red Herring..I am not trying to pick a fight with you, but when you bridge from "hurting someone" to pollution and the economy you make an argument that many have tried ( in form I mean) bridging one issue to another with no real connection...ie If gay's are allowed to marry then people will want to marry animals so we must stop gay people from being married to protect animals from being exploited and the ruination of society.....you see that is a fallacy by form and contradiction it tries to bridge two issues that have no connection those being gay marriage and beastiality..unless one of the gay people looks like sasquatch..I digress..as you did with inflicting harm on someone and pollution to the economy...so anyway it is based off of modus ponens and modus tolens the basis and most rudimentary logical means of deduction.
I disagree completly. Maybe I didn't illustrate my point clearly enough.
You cannot argue that pollution doesn't cause health problems for people. It does. Everythig from unburned hydrocarbons to secondhand smoke are bad for people when breathed in.
Since pollution then harms your fellow man, it would have to be illegal according to Libertarian law.
Now, step back. No pollution means pretty much no factories, no trucks or planes or trains to transport anything. There really isn't that much in this world that doesn't contribute to pollution somehow.
Would it get that far? Absolutely not, but then it woudln't really be Libertarianism, would it... |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:46 pm: |
|
if you are not part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution. They won't let you play.
Which is why the two party system makes it hard for anybody other than one of their OWN to make the PUBLIC ballot. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:50 pm: |
|
BTW the topic is 3rd party not Libertary party. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:52 pm: |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_third_party _candidates_in_the_United_States_presidential_elec tion,_2008
1 Constitution Party
2 Green Party
3 Libertarian Party
4 Personal Choice Party
5 Prohibition Party
6 Socialist Party USA
7 Independent Green Party of Virginia
8 Independents
and a few more |
Etennuly
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 06:39 pm: |
|
I voted for Perot, I liked the little bastard and all of his charts. It all made sense. I like a successful self made man. That is why I would vote for someone like him again.....HE MADE SENSE.
There was a Libertarian, I believe, who ran at the same time as Perot. I don't remember his name, but he got enough people to petition for him to get the candidates equal time program, wherein it seemed every fifth word of his speech was "thermo-neuclear". Scary from a man with no political experience and no world wide first hand knowledge.
We the people have, over the centuries, allowed our government to become a huge machine that we can only control by our votes.......not really.......more is done through press coverage of scandals. There was a time that people actually volunteered and did their share of time in government.
Presidents elected in this great land by a share of votes from 20% of its population is shameful, wasting votes on a defensive vote is shameful (not doing it....just the idea that we need to do it). Not spending a little time researching the candidates is shameful.
We reap what we sow. |
Stealthxb
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:24 pm: |
|
I vote Libertarian every chance I get!
And the opportunities have been increasing.
Go FREEDOM!
Save us from the Liberal teet! |
Ghostrider
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:36 pm: |
|
I really liked Stockdale, he just couldn't "speak"
I RESPECT Stockdale for what he did. However, did anyone ever figure out exactly what he stood for?
I voted for Buchanan. Twice. And then later for GWB. |
Stealthxb
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:44 pm: |
|
I would like to ask everyone to take the following quiz:
World's Smallest Political Quiz
It takes less than a minute.
Be honest and let us know what you come up with.
I am sure many of you will be surprised. |
Ghostrider
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:45 pm: |
|
more is done through press coverage of scandals.
How is this a good thing? The media should REPORT the news, not BE the news or MAKE the news. They aren't exactly an unbiased source of information. In my mind, they are no better than Wikipedia.
You know, we could have more than two parties. We could be a multiparty country. But how would anything get done? Look at European countries. Any super-powers lurking in there? I don't think so. They're all too busy arguing about how many cabinet positions their party should hold for pulling the whole coalition together.
Or, maybe some of you are thinking that two is too many. Yeah, that's what we need. ONE party. That'll do it. Shall we call it the Communist Party? The Nazi Party? The People's Party? The Baath Party? None of those are being used right now. |
Stealthxb
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:46 pm: |
|
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:51 pm: |
|
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p= 8&e=6http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p= 8&e=6 |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 07:54 pm: |
|
"You know, we could have more than two parties. We could be a multiparty country. But how would anything get done?"
Thats part of the problem. Why does something always need to be done? Always More laws, More rules, More taxes, More control.
The two party system has "done" alot in the last 50 years. But really what good has it done over what would have happened if they would have not created such a massive federal system. |
Hughlysses
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 08:23 pm: |
|
I like Jerry Pournelle's 2-axis political chart:
It provides a much better basis for political discussions than "left wing" and "right wing". |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 08:33 pm: |
|
Liberal Libertarian
Personal 100
Economic 50
I'll take the Democrat's in charge of domestic, the Republican's in charge of foreign, NO tax increase without a 75% super majority, FULL protection of Constitutional liberties, ( nuke about 1/3 of existing laws ) and I'll take veto power over any stupid crap. I'll otherwise stay out of sight, and take 1/2 the salary of the local Superintendent of school's cabinet. ( 26 people, ( FAR more than Bush, or Clinton's ) average $150,000 year, $10,000 bonus last year, in the worst school district in New York. Less than 50% high school graduation rate. ) My benign rule will herald a golden age.
So, register Dem Or Rep, for 2008? ( for primary purposes ) |
Nutsnbolt
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 08:50 pm: |
|
Here's my take and opinion on all of this...
Why in the hell do we have "parties?" Why is there Republican and Democrat and Libertarian and Green and Independant and yada, yada, yada. Here's the thing... Once you start to define what each party stands for, another yahoo comes along with a more perverse view of that party and then that party is then labeled and colored with that brush. I'm pretty much sick of Republican and Democrat and all that other B.S. I understand that having parties puts candidates in a easier to read category, but jesus, even those who call themselves one party or another believe some of the other parties ideas.
Why can't there just be people running for office. Not "another republican" or "another democrat" or "some whack job green party candidate." (by the way, i tend to root for the underdog)
Imagine a United States where you weren't labeled. Imagine watching a debate that said what their name was, where they were from and that's it. Everything else is just what they stand for and how you react to that. I think that voting would feel like you made a difference and that, you were actually voting for someone that YOU FELT would be looking out for your best interests.
Why do I just have 2 or 3 choices? I grew up with history classes that tought me that ANY American could be the President. As I get older and older I realize that it's bullshit. You have to be some Millionaire that went to Yale or Harvard or some other elitist institution to even come close to having a chance. OR have a Daddy that can help you with all his millions and connections get you into a CHANCE to be President.
Granted... Do I want some unemployed bongo player from last night's battle of the Karaoke band sing off's to be my president? Maybe. This is still supposed to be the country that offered EVERY AMERICAN a chance. |
Ratyson
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Gotta watch out for that green party.
From their party platform:
The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics." We must take aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distribution standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth.
Basically, they would like to set a maximum income for individuals. Anything above that, they want taxed at 100%. That is a very scary stance, and completely spits in the face of individual liberty/freedom.} |
Cyclonedon
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:35 pm: |
|
after seeing how this last administration has acted, I'm going to take a chance on the Democrats. There is no way in hell that they could possibly screw up as bad as the Republicans have! George Jr. will go down in history as the WORST president this country has ever had! |
Chellem
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Hey, I guessed 90% of my personal beliefs coordinated with Libertarians, and I scored 90% on the little quizzy!
How 'bout that! It's one of those parties where you're like, man, what a world if EVERYONE felt that way.
But someone was right - there will always be people who prefer the government "take care" of them, who prefer to have someone to blame other than themselves for where they are in life, someone who needs someone to "pay" for whatever horrible thing happened to them.
I don't mean to generalize against everyone. I know that things happen that are beyond our control and sometimes you need a 'leg up' or something to get back on your feet. But for crying out loud, life is life! There isn't always someone directly responsible, and at some point you have to start helping yourself too!
But government should play a minimal part in all this. All these laws being written, a giant animal is created that must somehow sustain itself with more laws, to further justify its own existence.
What we need are FEWER laws, and a healthy dose of tolerance. Everyone needs to grow skin just a tad thicker, and not take everything as a personal affront, as if the world were responding to them personally. If everyone took responsibility for their own lives, livlihoods and actions, we'd need less government intrusion into our lives.
*sigh* THAT would be quite a world. |
Hdbobwithabuell
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:23 pm: |
|
STFU! What would any of us do that would be better than ANY Presidential administration has ever done? Bitch and piss and moan when gas goes over $2 a gallon and at the same time bitch and piss and moan that we want to f... with the middle east or drill in AK? Holy crap, do you REALLY think that any president of the US is REALLY dumber than you? |
Old_mil
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:31 pm: |
|
http://www.gohunter08.com
...a relative unknown who should make a pretty decent President.
If he doesn't get a nomination, I'll go back to voting 3rd party. |
Hdbobwithabuell
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Do you realize that voting "3rd party" is the same as not voting... Oh... never mind |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Wow...I scored the same as StealthXB, sorry bro, hopefully it doesn't mess with your good reputation...so many Libertarian Types here, and I think through the country, yet only the two party system is really supported..hm..I guess many feel as bob does that a 3rd party vote is not a vote and so they vote Red or Blue depending on what they can live with....interesting stuff... |
Thansesxb9rs
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:25 am: |
|
Scored exactly like I thought I would
Conservative Right
Bush has been a much better prez then old Will ever was. Will had it easy when he was in office all he had to worry about was the economy. Old Will was a disgrace to our country and turned it into a joke with his little sex act that nobody seems to think was wrong unless you are a moral person. To think Will is a good man is to say every adulter is a good man. Bush actually has morals at least though some may not agree with his agenda. Now people are just mad at Bush because he scares the hell out of them, I would much rather have a man of action in office at this time then one that would back down when our country has been threatened.
Yup just think everyone on here says they don't vote 3rd party because they can't win, well it will always be that way unless you change your mind set. They may not win but more and more people will start to see people are actually voting for them and maybe then vote.
If you don't like any of the candidates then why vote? That seems like the easy way out to say I voted but not for this party.
Guess that proves Stealth your little survey does work. |
Rainman
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:26 am: |
|
Damn! I came out liberal. Does that mean I have to get rid of my guns? |
Thansesxb9rs
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:38 am: |
|
lol, yup or give them to me since I am still conservative.
 |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 01:05 am: |
|
Damn it, I came out Libertarian, does that mean I have to give up my dope, guns and wemen?
jimidan |
Chainsaw
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 10:54 am: |
|
Libertarians want you to have guns, dope and women! |
Rainman
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 03:50 pm: |
|
I wanna be a libertarian, or at least a libertine. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 06:13 pm: |
|
"What would any of us do that would be better than ANY Presidential administration has ever done? Bitch and piss and moan when gas goes over $2 a gallon and at the same time bitch and piss and moan that we want to f... with the middle east or drill in AK? Holy crap, do you REALLY think that any president of the US is REALLY dumber than you?"
I knew that Iraq was a HUGE mistake. As a dumb ole enlisted Sergeant I was prevey enought to know about the relegious sects in Iraq. No I don't think I am smart enough to fab up a complete scam for war so that me and my buddies can profit from it. But I would have been smart enough to save the country 300,000,000,000 in a bogus war or loose 3100 good Americans in a bogus war. |
Rainman
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 10:07 pm: |
|
I agree R-77. Some buddies of mine in the 82nd back at the end of the Gulf War told me that a major reason NOT to go into Iraq was that it would collapse into people hating each other and described exactly the fault lines that exist today. I had hoped our government knew what it was doing.
I also hoped Santa would bring me a new XB12Ss... |
Thansesxb9rs
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Screw Santa he didn't bring me crap last year! |
Rainman
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2007 - 01:18 am: |
|
I know what I want the Easter Bunny to bring me |
|
