PDA

View Full Version : Third Party: What are my options?


Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
April 22, 2003, 22:43
I'm doing my research NOW, in case I make the decision to switch to a third party.

I'm not happy with the way our constitutional liberties have been slaugtered in the last several decades. Of late, I'm not happy with the Patriot Act. And if the Republicans allow a new Assault Weapon Ban to pass, that's going to be it for me.

I know a third party candidate won't ever win a presidency, but I want the piece of mind that goes along with knowing that I did the right thing.

Tell me what else is out there.

RRotz
April 22, 2003, 23:08
Personally, I'm Libertarian. Here are the LP's position on Guns.

http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html

Why Libertarians Support Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners

Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Constitutional Rights
America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.

One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.

But, gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns. although millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.

The Prohibition Lesson
Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results.

Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.

The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.

Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.

The Right of Self Defense
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.

The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.

Personal Responsibility
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.

You can do more research on Libertarian Issues and Positions at:
http://www.lp.org/issues

kenhorse
April 22, 2003, 23:25
well i need to find a new party also. bush does not do it for me and the other party:rolleyes: if only john wayne was still alive

kotengu
April 23, 2003, 02:31
I'm a libertarian as well. I admit I'm a little frustrated by some of what the "big L" Libertarians do and say that works against us, but overall they definitely have the ideas that I agree with.

It's kind of like the "stay out of my pocket" side of the republicans and the "stay out of my bedroom" side of the democrats, with a healthy portion of personal responsibility and accountability thrown in for good measure.

idsubgun
April 23, 2003, 04:33
Third parties in this country right now are a waste. I'm not saying they don't have valid points of view, I just saying that a vote for a third party, is a vote that was thrown away. Look at Perot and Bush #1. Perot cost Bush that election by splitting Republican vote away from him. Same thing happened with Bush #2 and Gore. Ralph Nader took votes from Democrats and probably lost the election for Gore.
While a third party sounds good, you'll never get all the gun owners into thinking alike and voting for the third party. Hell, you can't even get them to join a gun rights organization and fight for their rights.
Right now there is one party that WANT to take your guns, and one party that still has people who believe in the Right to Bear Arms. I think the choice is obvious.
I feel when you vote for a third party and give the election to the other side, you may as well have voted for that other side.

Falunga
April 23, 2003, 05:03
Originally posted by idsubgun
Third parties in this country right now are a waste. I'm not saying they don't have valid points of view, I just saying that a vote for a third party, is a vote that was thrown away.

<snip>

Right now there is one party that WANT to take your guns, and one party that still has people who believe in the Right to Bear Arms. I think the choice is obvious.
I feel when you vote for a third party and give the election to the other side, you may as well have voted for that other side.

Right...and denial is more than just a river in Egypt.

If there is any commonality between the 2 parties it is this: Taxes will go up. Government spending will go up. Gun Freedoms will go down. Maybe taxes and spending go up at a slightly slower pace under the Republicans but not much -the still go up. Most of the major Gun-rights losses seem to happen under GOP control.

It doesn't matter which of the "major" 2 parties you vote for. People who don't get this are just blind to the facts. If you can't see that the Republicans are just as responsible for the major anti-gun laws that have come down from government then we are lost. You might as well turn your guns in now. Vote for candidate A who wants to take your guns and says so or vote for candidate B who wants to take your guns but is too much of a coward to come out and say so until after he gets elected and then says he supports renewing the AWB.

Thanks idsubgun. It is people like you who have got us into this mess. The lesser of two evils is still evil and until people stop voting for evil we can kiss our rights goodbye.

Jim :fal: FALunga

kotengu
April 23, 2003, 06:57
Or stated in another way.......

If a "major" party is losing votes to a 3rd party and wants to get those votes back, their best strategy is to look at what they are doing that sent those people "looking" like 100mph is here. I'd be perfectly happy if the Libertarian Party went the way of the Socialist Party (don't get excited.........read on).

I think it was the 70's in which the Socialist Party stopped running candidates, and when asked why, they replied "because the Democratic Party has adopted all of our platforms."

If votes are being lost (or perceived of being lost), a wise party will change to get those votes back. However, if you keep voting for the same old people, you will only get the same old results (as said above, BOTH parties are responsible in this case). Sure, we may get the worse of two evils in the short term because of it - but if they're both "evil" does it really matter anyway? That's also what our balance of power is about - even the President can not really affect all that much change. Keep contacting ALL of your reps and let them know you're watching, you care, and what's important to you.

If, on the other hand, the votes steamroll and the 3rd party candidate suddently becomes viable (there are over 500 Libertarians holding office nationwide now, after all), we win. We will still have to watch our LP rep, and keep contacting him, but at least he understands the basis for what got him there. Granted he will have a hard time (at best) getting anything done because he is in such a small minority, but it's a start.

And if this all turns out to be wrong, at least I can live with myself that I didn't vote for the guy that passed the "______" ban, or took a big chunk of our freedoms away.

To me, what it really comes down to is doing what your think is right, regardless of the outcome. I try to live by this, and I don't see any reason that politics are different (also a good reason why I could never be a politician).

1gewehr
April 23, 2003, 07:18
Why do people keep repeating the trash about Perot and third parties keeping Bush Sr from being reelected? It is NOT true.

Bush Sr. caused his OWN defeat. He stabbed his voter base in the back. He raised taxes after promising not to do it. He increased gun control after promising not to do it. Would you have suggested that we encourage him?

If you aren't willing vote your conscience, don't be surprised when your elected officials misbehave.

Some of the greatest lies heard today are 'democracy', 'two-party system', and 'gun control'. This country is none of the above. We are NOT a democracy. We do NOT have a 'two-party system'. And 'gun control' means 5 rounds in 1" at 100 meters.

Politicans who don't understand the above need to be removed.
1gewehr

AR 15 Girl
April 23, 2003, 08:17
Take this test World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html) .I vote libertarian.

Stranger
April 23, 2003, 08:37
Holy cow! It says I am left-liberal.

The questions on there are overly broad and need focus. Are they speaking of the federal government, laws, and taxes, or local/state government? I am all for state and local governments being able to levy taxes and prohibit/allow certain activities based on the consent of the community. Are they assuming a perfect world? If you removed all drug laws will everyone everywhere suddenly be conscious that their actions have serious consequences? What borders are they talking about? State borders, or international?

Neat idea, but it needs a lot of work to mean anything.

Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
April 23, 2003, 09:25
idsubgun, if Bush allows ANY new gun control laws to pass, especially a new AW ban, I will stop supporting the Republican Party.

At that point there will be little difference between the Dems and Republicans.

Mountain Mosby
April 23, 2003, 09:42
Pegged me as right on the border between Centrist and Libertarian....

hhhmmmmmm..... Interesting.

I feel a Strong Third Party is exactly what we need. The two party system we have now is destroying us from both ends of the spectrum. The Republicans are becoming Facists and the Democrats are becoming Socialists.... We, as a People, need to get control back from these two lumbering giants.....

Seems to me that the Libertarians have the best chance of doing it.

Skilter
April 23, 2003, 09:49
IF someone formed the "Leave Me The F*ck Alone" Party, I would become a charter member.

HelluvaEngineer
April 23, 2003, 09:59
Originally posted by idsubgun
Third parties in this country right now are a waste. I'm not saying they don't have valid points of view, I just saying that a vote for a third party, is a vote that was thrown away. Look at Perot and Bush #1. Perot cost Bush that election by splitting Republican vote away from him. Same thing happened with Bush #2 and Gore. Ralph Nader took votes from Democrats and probably lost the election for Gore.

zzzz :sleep: ...

Do you guys have this saved in a template that you re-use in every third-party related topic? Out of curiosity, was it written by the RNC or the DNC?

HelluvaEngineer
April 23, 2003, 10:07
Originally posted by Skilter
IF someone formed the "Leave Me The F*ck Alone" Party, I would become a charter member.

Read the libertarian party platform. This is basically what they are for. Imagine a government 1/100th it's current size, and the number of laws cut by the same proportion. That's what the LP "goal" is. Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't conflict with my fundamental rights.

goalie35
April 23, 2003, 10:12
Skilter, that's the IDEA of the libertarians. The simplest expression of the philosophy is "An it harm none, do as ye will." It also specifically includes the Nonagression Principle, which holds that it is immoral, and a free nation should hold it illegal, to initiate the use of force in any form, whatsoever. That adds up to leaving all of us the f*ck alone, unless we cause actual harm to others.

I haven't voted for a member of Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B, whenever there was another choice, since the 1988 elections.
Bush the First was enought to sour me on Republicrats; I'd had enough of Demicans after Mr. Jimmy.

In the final analysis, support whoever you want--just make sure they support YOU, as well. "Because I know what's good for you" didn't work for my parents, and I'm damned sure I won't cede that power to any politician.

J308
April 23, 2003, 10:48
Look at the platform, look at what they at least attempt to accomplish, And fercrissakes look at what the powers that be are doing to us. I've been voting libertarian since I was old enough to vote. The libertarians' power base is too small ,but it's gotta start somewhere. I've never considered my vote as having been "thrown away".

fastfreddy
April 23, 2003, 10:58
The only way to make your vote count is to look into the platforms and ideals of every group from the communists to the nazis to the anarchists and then vote for the one that has a position that you support. For me, that usually means libertarian. However, it is one man- one vote so you have to make up your own mind. You are an American. Your vote is important. You are on the right track by wondering what your choices are and wanting to learn more. Don't let the media do it for you... vote for the kind of government YOU want. No vote cast is a wasted vote but a vote compromised IS un-American.

ProGun1
April 23, 2003, 13:00
It pisses me off to no end when folks accuse me of throwing my vote away but I remind those folks that they too could have made a better choice than just voting for the lesser of two evils. Why are we strapped with a two party sysyem? When are folks going to vote in that libertarian dog catcher and get a head of steam going? Isn't this the same line folks say when considering their money given to support the GOA or the NRA? The NRA is larger and has a better lobby but they have been known to compromise and then folks scream that they'll back the GOA. So what's wrong with gaining support? You have to start somewhere.

JoeLad
April 23, 2003, 13:45
Originally posted by Mountain Mosby
Pegged me as right on the border between Centrist and Libertarian....

hhhmmmmmm..... Interesting.

I'm right there with you brother. Says I'm Centrist too.

I'm registered Libertarian, have been for years. The two party system doesn't work. They're both the same, they just wear different coats.

FJ:D

fireback
April 23, 2003, 14:52
I'm one click right of having contracted full blown libertairianism! I'm sure some alphabet soup agency is gonna come in a few minutes get me for "political re-education" (tell my wife and kids that I love them).

As I once read in "Send in the Waco Killers" the "progressive social DemocRATs" are taking this country headlong into socialism, screaming along about 90mph.

Their opposite "anti-big gov. rePUBlICans who we believe are "moving in another direction", only taking us into socialism at 60mph.

The last hundred years this country has really gone to hell in a hand basket, yes, I know it started way before that, but really, for our concerns 1912 was a horrible year for the institution of greater gov power over the citizenry of this country. It's gone downhill fast. And what parties have we to thank for it? R&D.

sparky
April 23, 2003, 16:06
I am with idsubgun on this only time I voted third party I got Slick Williy! Never again!:skull:

Falunga
April 23, 2003, 16:13
Originally posted by Stranger
Holy cow! It says I am left-liberal.

I am all for state and local governments being able to levy taxes and prohibit/allow certain activities based on the consent of the community.



Then you ARE a left-liberal!

If it quacks like a duck, IT'S A DUCK!

Jim :fal: FALunga

Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
April 23, 2003, 16:51
I took the test and came up solidly in the Libertarian category.

RRotz
April 23, 2003, 17:21
Originally posted by Stranger
Holy cow! It says I am left-liberal.



LMAO! It wouldn't take a quiz for me to figure that out about you, hehehehe!

:biggrin:

idsubgun
April 23, 2003, 17:26
**** you FALunga, I've been fighting for our gun rights longer then you can imagine.
I have you on my ignore list, but I just had to read your stupid drivel. I expected bullshit from you and I got it.

"People like me", huh? Well, people like you sure have made a difference in Wisconsin, eh? There's a real freedom loving state. I'm surprised you can even own a firearm there in "Democrat North".

I think some people need to fully understand what's happening in this country. And right now, voting a third party IS throwing your vote away.
If you brainiacs had read my post, you would have seen I said it's a good idea, but won't fly at this moment. Don't try to read anymore into my post then I wrote.
This is exactly what I mean by not getting the gun owners together. How can we accomplish that when some are dumb enough to throw their votes away?


HelluvaEngineer,
Yes, I have this saved on a Word document. I just copy and paste it when dumbshits come out of the woodwork.


Once again, **** you FALunga. I sure wish I could meet you in person. This internet makes big men of small pieces of shit like you. I can guarantee you wouldn't be talking shit to my face if you were in the same room as me, puke.
"People like me", huh?

Falunga
April 23, 2003, 17:56
Originally posted by idsubgun
**** you FALunga

Once again, **** you FALunga. I sure wish I could meet you in person. This internet makes big men of small pieces of shit like you. I can guarantee you wouldn't be talking shit to my face if you were in the same room as me, puke.
"People like me", huh?

If you have me on ignore then good!

If you don't have me on ignore -and I bet you don't- then send me a PM and we can talk about this like men.


My bet is you _don't_ have me on ignore but you will pretend that you never read this. -if it QUACKS...

Jim :fal: FALunga

-edited to conform to forum rules. You are not worth it!

idsubgun
April 23, 2003, 18:17
Originally posted by Falunga


If you have me on ignore then good!

If you don't have me on ignore -and I bet you don't- then send me a PM and we can talk about getting together. We can see if our preconceived notions about each other are based in any reality with an honest to god "face to face." I'm looking forward to it. You will find me a very calm and honest person who never _initiates_ force. I'll tell you what I think regardless of the intimacy or anonymity of the situation. I also know how to handle myself around people who can't handle truth in plain words, and who then feel the need to escalate the situation to a physical confrontation. Most people don't understand the non-aggression principle.

My bet is you _don't_ have me on ignore but you will pretend that you never read this. -if it QUACKS...



Oh, I have you on ignore. This drivel you're spouting now sounds like a cowards way out. PM you, I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.
"Non-aggression principle" is another way of saying "I'm a pussy".
If you're ever in Idaho, look me up.
Have a good life shithead.


Greg,
Sorry for highjacking your thread.
This board was so much better before scum like FALunga came around and his type of bullshit is getting real old. I used to find this board a source of entertainment and relaxation, but it's seeming to go the other way lately. You can't express your opinions anymore without POS's like FALunga slamming your every word.

RRotz
April 23, 2003, 18:27
April 23 LP Press Release on Guns

Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's support for renewing a Clinton administration ban on so-called assault rifles sends the wrong message to terrorists and other criminals, Libertarians say.

"Politicians who want to disarm vulnerable Americans at a time like this are a threat to homeland security," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "The government simply can't protect everyone, all the time, but at least it can allow Americans to protect themselves."

The 1994 assault weapons law, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and then-Rep. Charles Schumer, D-NY, banned the manufacture and importation of certain types of semi-automatic rifles and prohibited magazines of more than 10 rounds. Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan set off a public furor recently when he said the president "supports reauthorization of the current law," which is set to expire in September 2004 because of a 10-year sunset provision.

But banning guns sends terrorists and other criminals the message that Americans are even more vulnerable than before, Libertarians point out.

"Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?

"Of course, an assault weapon may never be used to thwart a terrorist assault. But if overturning this gun ban saves just one life, it will have been worthwhile."

The main justification for the gun ban -- that assault weapons are a favorite choice for criminals -- doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, Neale pointed out.

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an 'assault rifle,' " he said. "So banning assault weapons to protect public safety makes as much sense as banning knives and baseball bats."

The threat posed by assault weapons is so exaggerated that Joseph Constance, a deputy police chief in Trenton, NJ, once told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "My officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

The bigger threat is that Bush will follow through on his promise to sign the renewed assault weapons ban, Neale said.

"When it comes to supporting crime-victim disarmament laws, Bush is a recidivist," he said. "Just eight months after terrorists commandeered four airlines on September 11, Bush opposed a House bill that would have allowed armed pilots in the cockpit. Fortunately, the president reversed himself in response to public pressure -- and the legislation was approved."

Now Bush seems to be repeating his mistake -- and that's bad news for homeland security, Libertarians say.

"Let's urge Bush to flip-flop in the direction of freedom again and let this gun ban quietly expire," he said. "It's time to stop the government's assault on public safety."

Mountain Mosby
April 23, 2003, 18:27
I think you are taking this WAY too personal ID.....

Ain't no call for you going off like you are......IMHO.....

idsubgun
April 23, 2003, 18:35
Originally posted by Mountain Mosby
I think you are taking this WAY too personal ID.....

Ain't no call for you going off like you are......IMHO.....

Three little words, Mountain Mosby, "People like you"....... That jerkoff has no idea who I am, and what I stand for.

Mountain Mosby
April 23, 2003, 18:55
I'll give you that, BUT... your tyraid was pretty excessive... and way out of line... this started out as a pretty good thread until it got personal. This subject is way to important to get regulated to DB 'cause of a personality clash......

You could have handled it in a more mature way..... is all I'm sayin'....

idsubgun
April 23, 2003, 19:06
Originally posted by Mountain Mosby
I'll give you that, BUT... your tyraid was pretty excessive... and way out of line... this started out as a pretty good thread until it got personal. This subject is way to important to get regulated to DB 'cause of a personality clash......

You could have handled it in a more mature way..... is all I'm sayin'....

Yeah, I probably could have, but pull my chain and you get both barrels.

Besides, whenever you get a couple of hours, do a search on all of FALunga's posts and you will see that shit-for-brains does nothing but slam people.
This board was a much better place before him.

My last .02 on this matter.

Mountain Mosby
April 23, 2003, 19:11
OK....

I understand, it's hard to bite ones tounge...... sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do... :salute:

Falunga
April 23, 2003, 20:03
Quack - quack!

Got a stamp?

Jim :fal: FALunga

Derby FALs
April 23, 2003, 21:23
Originally posted by HelluvaEngineer


zzzz :sleep: ...

Do you guys have this saved in a template that you re-use in every third-party related topic? Out of curiosity, was it written by the RNC or the DNC?

With the difference being? :smile:

Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
April 23, 2003, 22:16
Bill, you and Falunga have my permission to work out whatever differences you have in my thread all you want. Just leave each others mother out of it :D.

Bill, I see your point about voting third party. I used to feel the same way. But, at this point in history with the House, Senate, and White House being controlled by the Republicans there is absolutely no reason for me to be worried about losing more of my gun rights. I am worried though. Why did the White House all of a sudden, without provocation, make the statement that they support re-newing the ban? Why can’t they come out and say “Hey, you guys relax, there will be no more gun control laws passed as long as we’re in control”? They could do it if they wanted to. They wouldn’t lose one single vote from doing it. They have run on the gun friendly platform. It’s what people expect from them. Bush is tough enough to take on the U.N., piss off Russia, take out the second most powerful army in the middle east, but he can't defend the Constitution? He would IF he wanted to. If he doesn't, it's because he's just like Lincoln.

If they extend the ban they can forget about me giving them my vote. Ever. I WILL vote third party. And I don’t give a damn if a democrat gets back in like what happened with Bush versus Clinton. If that happens things will no doubt get worse, but maybe that’s what needs to happen. Maybe then people will “snap” into doing the right thing, instead of begging and hoping that the Republicans have mercy on us and the Constitution. **** that. The people in office should legislate in accordance with the Constitution. If they can’t, **** ‘em all.

It may take a hundred years to affect a change, but so be it. I will set the example for my friends. I may end up losing all of my guns because of a democrat, but I will stand up for what is right. Every ******* time I have compromised my standards I ended up getting let down. I will not let myself down in the future.

RRotz
April 23, 2003, 22:30
Originally posted by Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
They wouldn’t lose one single vote from doing it. They have run on the gun friendly platform. It’s what people expect from them.

If they extend the ban they can forget about me giving them my vote. Ever. I WILL vote third party. And I don’t give a damn if a democrat gets back in like what happened with Bush versus Clinton. If that happens things will no doubt get worse, but maybe that’s what needs to happen. Maybe then people will “snap” into doing the right thing, instead of begging and hoping that the Republicans have mercy on us and the Constitution. **** that. The people in office should legislate in accordance with the Constitution. If they can’t, **** ‘em all.

It may take a hundred years to affect a change, but so be it. I will set the example for my friends. I may end up losing all of my guns because of a democrat, but I will stand up for what is right. Every ******* time I have compromised my standards I ended up getting let down. I will not let myself down in the future.

I don't think our politicians in charge mind losing votes, our votes. What they're concerned with is losing huge financial contributions to their party and re-election campaigns. I think politicians of our two major parties have long since cared about the individuals vote or opinion as long as the huge corporations and lobby groups pony up substantial amounts of cash to push thier own agenda.

Here is the LP position on Political Corruption and Campaign Reform. Allowing government sponsorship of political parties ares key to keeping a viable 3rd party in check and out of the elections.


Political Corruption
Americans of all backgrounds are sick and tired of the growing problem of political corruption and abuse. Every day more and more examples of the abuse of power by elected and appointed officials hit the newsstands. These problems are epidemic in both the Democratic and the Republican parties.

The House Bank -- set up with bipartisan support -- was supposed to be a convenient way for busy congressmen to cash their paychecks. What it turned out to be was a scam for many congressmen -- a way to write bad checks often totalling more than a congressman's pay. If you or I did this at our local bank, we would be subject to criminal prosecution and fines in most states. Why should congressmen allow themselves to do something wrong? Should we be surprised that a group of people who cannot balance their own checkbooks cannot balance our national budget?

Both parties in Congress have voted to give themselves dozens of special privileges -- everything from free airport parking to health clubs to cheap haircuts to passing laws that do not apply to them. How different is this from the way that kings, queens, and dictators make demands of their citizens while they do what they please?

Both the Democrats and the Republicans vote to use our tax dollars to pay for their election campaigns and their conventions. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are used for this every four years. They use our money for their purposes so that they don't have to use their own. Isn't it time that members of Congress pay their own bills instead of making us pay them?

Then, to make it harder to challenge their power, both parties have cooperated in enacting laws in almost every state that make it very difficult and extremely expensive for any other candidate to get on the ballot. Even billionaire Ross Perot has commented that the law in most states makes it difficult to get on the election ballot. If the business of Congress were anything other than politics, people would be calling for Congress and its members to be subject to anti-trust laws to prevent their monopoly from being abused ever again. Congress has done a good job to make sure that the laws they write to rule over others don't apply to Congress or its members!

And to add insult to injury, Congress has had no problem finding the time or spending the money to give themselves a big, fat raise. Wouldn't you love it if you only had to vote "yes" to get a huge raise whenever you wanted one! If nothing else, doesn't this make it clear that members of Congress see themselves as a special, privileged class?

Libertarians believe that elected officials should not hide behind special privileges that exempt them from the rules they impose on the people who elect them. Libertarians believe that elected officials do not deserve and should not have any rights or privileges that are different from those of any other citizen. We support:


Elimination of special rights and privileges for elected or appointed government officials.


Revision of any law or regulation that exempts the government or its officials from compliance.


Ending government funding of any political party or candidate.


Revision of state and federal laws to enable all candidates for elective office to be included on election ballots.

sparky
April 23, 2003, 22:55
Quote
__________________________________________
I think you are taking this WAY too personal ID.....

Ain't no call for you going off like you are......IMHO.....


________________________________________

Same ole falunga no matter what the subject he talks a line of crap! This is not the first time he has pissed someone on this board off including me.:(

Derby FALs
April 23, 2003, 23:01
Originally posted by Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
... at this point in history with the House, Senate, and White House being controlled by the Republicans there is absolutely no reason for me to be worried about losing more of my gun rights. I am worried though....

Why would the former head of the KGB, General Yevgeni Primakov, be hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security?
:confused:

Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
April 23, 2003, 23:26
(sitting here laughing as I type this):D

Derby, I have to admit that I have thought you were pretty wacko in the past, but I'm starting to understand some of your logic. It is having an effect. Can you tell?

I have no idea why they would want that former commie. They can't be up to any good by having him around.

Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
April 23, 2003, 23:37
Thanks for all the info RRotz, my fellow catholic brother. :angel:

Who knows, we may become fellow Libertarians too, if Bush lets us down.

Derby FALs
April 23, 2003, 23:58
Originally posted by Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
(sitting here laughing as I type this):D

Derby, I have to admit that I have thought you were pretty wacko in the past, but I'm starting to understand some of your logic. It is having an effect. Can you tell?

I have no idea why they would want that former commie. They can't be up to any good by having him around.

I see a few coming around. The AW Ban may just be the last straw for quite a few. :wink:

Falunga
April 24, 2003, 05:17
Originally posted by sparky
Quote
__________________________________________
I think you are taking this WAY too personal ID.....

Ain't no call for you going off like you are......IMHO.....


________________________________________

Same ole falunga no matter what the subject he talks a line of crap! This is not the first time he has pissed someone on this board off including me.:(

If people like you and id actually liked me then I'd seriously lose respect for myself. Every time you post about me I know I'm doing the right thing and am pointed in the right direction. People like you and ID won't be happy until we are all wearing black armbands and goose-stepping to the town square to hear the furher's latest speach. Yeah. I'm glad I piss you off. Javol! :biggrin:

Jim :fal: FALunga

TheOtherBill
April 24, 2003, 18:08
Here is another twist for you.
I'm registered as a democrat. (i know, i know, just hear me out)
I usually vote AGAINST their strongest candidate in the primaries. Just to f*ck 'em up. During the general elections I just vote for the best candidate regardless of party.

Eric Bryant
April 25, 2003, 17:39
The whole "you're wasting your vote!" argument mainly seems to re-enforce the bad behavior by both parties, IMO. As others pointed out, Perot didn't cost Bush the election, and Nader didn't ruin things for Gore - those two mainstream candidates sank their own boat. But, it sure as hell is a lot easier to blame a third-party guy than it is to accept responsibility for your own party's failures.

I will continue to vote for the guy that best-represents my views, regardless of party affiliation or viability. To do anything else would only be letting myself down. Voting is one of the few things I can do in life without compromising my principles. Others may have a different agenda for voting - that's cool with me. Really, the only vote that I dislike is one that's cast without thinking.

RRotz
April 25, 2003, 20:15
Originally posted by Right Side Up @ 1000 MPH
Thanks for all the info RRotz, my fellow catholic brother. :angel:

Who knows, we may become fellow Libertarians too, if Bush lets us down.

Remember, when you convert to Libertarianism vote for your local Libertarian candidates too. :D

Always glad to help a brother. :bow:

:angel:

Derby FALs
April 25, 2003, 22:15
Originally posted by RRotz


Remember, when you convert to Libertarianism vote for your local Libertarian candidates too. :D

Always glad to help a brother. :bow:

:angel:

That's what it's all about. A Libertarian President is crippled without support from Congress. It starts at the local level in your city, county and State.