If you were to vote today

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]Gpc5_3B5xdk

[el jefe]

guns don't matter, billcoe. we're in the 21st century -- the information age -- and the foundation of any freedom now is the right to privacy. we should all be much more upset about the bush administration having engaged in surveillance of u.s. citizens without any sort of oversight by the judicial branch. guns are the source of political power but the world is full of guns and the government has many more and much more powerful guns than you and your neighbors have, so the fact that you've got a gun and think it matters somehow means you're the one who has settled for "perceived safety". your guns won't protect you when someone decides to wiretap you and read your emails, then send you off somewhere for interrogation.

[prole]

I always thought the most important part of Nader's 2000 platform was the emphasis on changing the system itself to make it more inclusive for third, fourth, and fifth parties along the lines of a proportionally representative system. Absent such systemic change, voting for a third party in a winner take all system dominated by two historically entrenched parties is, as Nader highlighted, not only throwing your vote away but potentially self-defeating. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

I agree with some of your ideas, man, but I'm gonna hafta call bullshit on this one, otherwise why would Nader still stay involved with politics? Merely to sustain gadfly status? Not that I disagree with your argument but it doesn't leave room for freedom. I don't accept it. It's too deterministic.

 

This illusion of choice engendered by the two party system is just that,...illusion. As if casting your vote for a particular party in the bipartisan system confers legitimacy to that party to make all of the changes it proposes, a mandate if you will. The way I see it, those minor parties represent a constituency whose collective voice can be heard if given media exposure. In other words, these parties address a need. In that respect, it seems that these parties can influence the national dialogue and if the conditions are right then hopefully impact the platforms of the two major parties.

 

Now, in some other countries, the ruling government has to form coalitions where the other parties can share in some of the power. Sure, it happens here to some extent, for example, inner city Democrats working with rural Republicans to support a bill that finances both food stamps and agricultural subsidies. Politics does make strange bedfellows.

 

But I know, the reality as it is, is that you're given two options: Work within the existing framework of the bipartisian system, Libertarians, for instance, believed that the Republican Party represented the best opportunity to push their agenda. Or, form a third party challenge. With our monolithic political system, it would take extraordinary conditions for the latter option to be viable. There's still a possibility however. It's not impossible. I'm no historian but there have been times when a particular party disintegrated or morphed into something different. I would suppose that the present economic crisis would foot that bill.

 

As I said above, the third party challenge addresses a need that should be examined and perhaps incorporated into the existing platform. Absent that, maybe a "community organizer" type person can elevate the third party supporters into a real challege to the status quo system of the pro-Statist Democratic and Republican Parties.

 

"Politics is war without bloodshed...."

 

Third parties under the current system (winner take all, two party), right now, have no chance of winning an election. If they're powerful enough, they can raise awareness, give voice to constituencies, be a thorn in the side to parties who share some of their ideas and influence their dialogue (at least in election season). This is why Nader stays in. If they're too powerful, they'll split the vote and get the wrong party elected. This will continue until a party morphs or collapses as you suggest or the "51% will get you everything" system is replaced with a more modern, more representative, more democratic system. The crux, of course, being that the existing parties will never endorse, much less fight for these changes without serious pressure from the grassroots and more frustratingly, from strong alternative party challenges. Getting this rolling is more viable on the local and state level than at the national level, where people are loathe to give up whatever tenuous grasp they have over policy. I'd rather shoot myself in the foot in order to make a statement to the local Democrats when traffic on Main St. is at stake than women's right to have an abortion. Until a national third party is strong enough to actually win or we have a more proportionally representative system, voting for a third party on the presidential stage is a mere gesture.

[billcoe]

guns don't matter, billcoe. we're in the 21st century -- the information age -- and the foundation of any freedom now is the right to privacy. we should all be much more upset about the bush administration having engaged in surveillance of u.s. citizens without any sort of oversight by the judicial branch. guns are the source of political power but the world is full of guns and the government has many more and much more powerful guns than you and your neighbors have, so the fact that you've got a gun and think it matters somehow means you're the one who has settled for "perceived safety". your guns won't protect you when someone decides to wiretap you and read your emails,...

 

Nice point (although I beg to differ as guns DO matter): I've sent in emails to representatives about this, and there are court cases moving along which I expect to stop the practice. As far as I know, no one has been hauled off "somewhere for interrogation" yet due to an illegal wiretap, although I bet its happened. In either case, I expect (maybe it's just a hope) this intrusive practice to end.

 

There have been various journalistic abuses as well, and I think we should be as informed, concerned and proactive as we can be to correct these issues when we trip over any of this kind of thing. Too many folks think that that it doesn't matter and they have no voice at all, and that merely grumbling about it on some random internet chat like this matters, when in fact that alone does very little. The link Fear and Greed posted earlier on another thread concerning the economic issues and challenges is another current one...although I do suspect that is truly out of our hands and we really are screwed on that one. They'll have to move fast and when they go to figure out why it's so F*ed up after the fact, fait accompli, too late bubbas.

[STP]

RE: guns and 2nd Amendment

 

I think it's misguided to put gun ownership solely into the opposition to tyranny category. Rather, the emphasis should be on taking control of your life and security instead of relying on government to address all of your needs. For example, take this headline: A fear that budget cuts may fuel crime . If you live in a rural area of King County and the number of law enforcement officers is reduced due to budget cuts, then how do you cope? By hoping for the best?

[prole]

ONE GUN, ONE VOTE.

[STP]

CELEBRATE!! TODAY IS ALL CAPS DAY!

[hafilax]

I WASN'T AWARE UNTIL NOW.

 

http://capslockday.com/

[Buckaroo]

Civil rights and liberties taken away under Bush

 

posse comitatus

 

Habeas Corpus

 

warrant-less wiretapping (right to privacy)

 

right to keep and bear arms

 

you repugs on here need to WAKE THE FUCK UP

 

the corporate repugs don't give a damn about you, they'll take your guns anytime they want

 

New Orleans Katrina gun grab

 

[video:youtube]

[billcoe]

ONE GUN, ONE VOTE.

 

6 SHOOTER = VOTES?

[Bug]

"It's not America as we've known it before. It's changin."

Thank you GW for standing up for our gun rights.

 

 

Just like you managed our economy.

[ken4ord]

our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

 

Of course it is utter bullshit, for knuckle-head like, you might actually have to think.

 

 

 

[ken4ord]

It unbelieveable how you guys get so worked about your guns and gun control. I guess I will never understand you guys. It sounds like such panoid behavior, that without your gun you'll lose all freedoms that you have. So far I have never heard of anyone who is support of gun control talk about getting rid of all guns. It about getting smart about who is cappable to have one and what types of guns people need. I don't really think it is necessary for fat-boy have handgun that can fire off 19 rounds in 2.89 seconds or anyone for that matter. That scares the fuck out me more than thinking that our government is going to swoop down and take away our rights.

 

Ok take worst case scenario government takes away our rights and we need to fight with guns to try and get our rights back. That is what you guys are scared of right, not it is going to happen, but just say it does. Is that really how you liked to see it played out? Would really take up arms and try to physically try to blast your way into freedom? Especially against mostly likely military and police officers that are trained fighting tactics. You wouldn't stand a chance no matter how big of gun you own. Also, I know death and murdering take a long time to recover from, it's traumatic, and some don't ever recover from it. Hell I have lived in countries where 15 years later people I know are afraid to go out of their home and are terrified at certain points of the year because what happened 15 year prior. I have met killers who are ashamed and confused how they did what they did. I have seen vietnam vets who flip out when they hear fire cracker go of and break down if they talk about what happened in the war. To be honest I rather just leave and go someplace else. The way I look at a government is nothing without people to govern.

 

I just don't buy in the notion that anyone can take away my freedom by taking away my right to weapons that are designed with the full intention for nothing more than to murder a human being. Has this happened in other countries where it is illegal to possess such weapon? NO. Will it happen? NO.

 

Again gun control is so insignificant to our current financial well being, health care and dealings in world politics.

[Off_White]

Remember the real reason that the 2nd amendment was put into place; as a final checks and balances for government. We haven't needed it in over 225 years, but that doesn't mean we wont.

 

The 2nd amendment starts with something along the lines of "in order to maintain a well regulated militia..." You know, an armed citizenry rather than maintaining a standing army of professional soldiers. The 2nd amendment suggests you should have to find another job than the one you currently hold. The notion that the amendment is about giving citizens the right to kill their government is a paranoid fantasy. Even if I had an assault rifle, what chance do you think I'd have against a squad of your pros?

[Dechristo]

If urban folks would stop dumping their unwanted pets in the sticks, I'd save a lot of ammo.

[billcoe]

If urban folks would stop dumping their unwanted pets in the sticks, I'd save a lot of ammo.

 

Yeah, but then what would you eat ? Woof!

 

The other dark meat

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

tastes like chicken?

[Dechristo]

A friend of mine who grew up on, what was then, the outskirts of Denver, had the misfortune of an alcoholic gambling father who routinely beat my friend's mother and stole from her whatever small amount of money she brought in performing housework for others. That left my friend, the oldest child to forage in order to feed his two brothers, two sisters, his mother, and himself. They ate anything and everything - sometimes gorging on water simply for the sensation of a full stomach.

 

The neighbors caught on as to why so many pets were disappearing and, together, set-up my friend's family with rabbit hutches and a chicken coop.

[Dechristo]

Still, to this day, if any type of animal is mentioned in conversation, Jerry says, "I've got a good recipe for that".