-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
F*** Bush, F*** Kerry, want an alternative? Meet Michael Badnarik.
- Thread starter RyanM
- Start date
"Minimal intervention in foreign affairs" is ostrich like insanity, and has been since the rise of Adolf Hitler, NO!, since World War 1, NO, since forever!!
Our fate and our fortunes are inextricably linked with the rest of this increasingly interdependent planet. Please grow up and get real.
Our fate and our fortunes are inextricably linked with the rest of this increasingly interdependent planet. Please grow up and get real.
The quality of the platform is meaningless at this stage of the game. He hasn't had enough exposure to have a snowball's chance in hell. So it's the same story just like the first time I voted 3rd party candidate John Anderson back in 1980, and ever since. He will only take votes away from Kerry.
That's what I'm curious about finding out - How many people buy the 2-party line of "they can't win, so don't vote for them."
The nice thing about Badnarik is that he's gonna steal votes from both parties - Libs who hate liberal economics and Fiscal conservatives who hate conservative social policies.
I'm not voting the lesser of two evils - I'm voting for the best candidate. If more people would finally say that, 3rd parties would not only have a shot, the Dems and Reps would have SERIOUS trouble on their hands. So of course, their goal is to suppress the 3rd parties and keep each other in power.
The two are inseparable. They're in a symbiosis that only strong convictions and an educated voting populace can pry apart.
The nice thing about Badnarik is that he's gonna steal votes from both parties - Libs who hate liberal economics and Fiscal conservatives who hate conservative social policies.
I'm not voting the lesser of two evils - I'm voting for the best candidate. If more people would finally say that, 3rd parties would not only have a shot, the Dems and Reps would have SERIOUS trouble on their hands. So of course, their goal is to suppress the 3rd parties and keep each other in power.
The two are inseparable. They're in a symbiosis that only strong convictions and an educated voting populace can pry apart.
They should have nominated Edwards for the dems instead of this blowhard arrogant SOB kerry, then I might have flipped...but since they gave us the uber liberal asshat kerry as the only other option looks like I am sticking with Bush.
I would like to see a third party take off, but facts are facts and people have a hard enough time choosing when there are only two.
I would like to see a third party take off, but facts are facts and people have a hard enough time choosing when there are only two.
imported_Aelius
Golden Member
Foreign affairs is not a touchy subject. Its actually quite simple but politicians make it look hard. Sort of like someone who never touched a computer in their whole life and suddenly its introduced at work and they are supposed to understand how to use it since it was on their resume. (I love this anology cause I see this every day at work)
I completely agree that our fate and fortunes are in fact linked with the rest of the world.
That's apparently a hard thing to understand for some.
I hate to point out the obvious but Nazi Germany was created by Western nations and what they did after WWI. The Nazi party got a vast majorify of its popularity from spewing hatred against the Western powers that tore Germany appart and shattered its economy after WWI.
You make your bed, and so you must sleep in it.
I bet most people here don't even know why WWI started.
Anyone want to take a stab at which later war was started virtually the exact same way as WWI?
imported_Aelius
Golden Member
I once wrote a peice on how the Reps and Dems are pulling every trick in the book to make sure no 3rd party gets into debates and don't even end up on the card.
After my little eye opening research it made me realize that power does in fact corrupt absolutely.
When I brought me revelations of what the Reps and Dems were doing to a forum, not unlike this one, you know what I was told by a lot of people who bothered to reply?
That not every Dick, Jane and Spot should be getting on the card.
After a reply like that is there any hope for real sane politics in the US?
I don't know, but one can hope.
I know for a fact that most people whom don't spend an awful lot of time on the Internet like us don't even know whom the 3rd parties are and why should they care? They are bombarded 24/7 by a media blitz on two possible choices as if either one was any real different from the other.
The bottom line is both parties are too much alike and they have just as much to loose as the other. So long as they stay in power, it doesn't matter which one win, they will never give up their position willingly.
They have fought and they will keep on fighting to make sure no one else gets a chance to speak against them from the Libertarian party.
I think that one time was just too much for either of them and probably gave too many of them a heartattack.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
I've done some research on the Libertarian Party. Here's some problems I have with their platform:
1) Abolition of the FDA in favor of industry self-regulation.
I'm sorry but this is just insanity. Yes, the FDA does hold up progress, but it does so for a very VERY good reason.
2) Protecting the environment by giving it to private interests because "people who own their own land take care of it".
Again, insanity. Companies won't take care of their land if exploiting it and moving on is most profitable. I'm not calling business evil, because the goal of business is to make money of course.
3) Making healthcare completely private with the abolition of Medicare and the like.
Its been tried in the country, and has proven to fail. Yes it could be improved, but totally cutting it is not the answer.
1) Abolition of the FDA in favor of industry self-regulation.
I'm sorry but this is just insanity. Yes, the FDA does hold up progress, but it does so for a very VERY good reason.
2) Protecting the environment by giving it to private interests because "people who own their own land take care of it".
Again, insanity. Companies won't take care of their land if exploiting it and moving on is most profitable. I'm not calling business evil, because the goal of business is to make money of course.
3) Making healthcare completely private with the abolition of Medicare and the like.
Its been tried in the country, and has proven to fail. Yes it could be improved, but totally cutting it is not the answer.
I'll sign a petition to get just about anyone on the ballot. I think those petitions are ridiculous. We're Americans. We're supposed to be able to have a dream of growing up and being president. Of course, that dream gets crushed if you can't bow to the republicans or democrats. Screw it, just be an American. Take the country back.
Vote Nader! 😉 😛
Monstathrilla, all your points echo my concerns with the platform. But obviously, not all candidates follow the platform 100%, and not all candidates give 100% to each tier.
Odds are, a nice compromise would be reached on drug development. The FDA simply has far too much power, and the regulations are too byzantine. A simplification of them would result in a massive savings alone; Europe's approval process is quite good and efficient, an example of mid-level regulation.
Same goes to the private interests thing; it's hard to imagine Yosemite or Yellowstone being pay-per-entry and having the attendance they do, and even if attendence could sustain them, would we want it to? Obviously a line has to be drawn; again, moderation is key.
As for 100% privitized healthcare, I think the jury's out on that one. I haven't seen convincing evidence from either side to sway me one way or the other. Obviously somthing must be done, sooner than later, but if the Libertarians don't have the answer, who does? The Reps or Dems? Hardly.
Odds are, a nice compromise would be reached on drug development. The FDA simply has far too much power, and the regulations are too byzantine. A simplification of them would result in a massive savings alone; Europe's approval process is quite good and efficient, an example of mid-level regulation.
Same goes to the private interests thing; it's hard to imagine Yosemite or Yellowstone being pay-per-entry and having the attendance they do, and even if attendence could sustain them, would we want it to? Obviously a line has to be drawn; again, moderation is key.
As for 100% privitized healthcare, I think the jury's out on that one. I haven't seen convincing evidence from either side to sway me one way or the other. Obviously somthing must be done, sooner than later, but if the Libertarians don't have the answer, who does? The Reps or Dems? Hardly.
imported_Aelius
Golden Member
1. Just for example. The FDA allowed and still allows "Aspartame/Aspertame" (Google is your friend) to be used in well over 2,500+ products since the late 90s. It was balooning in use back then so only God and some very nasty corporation executives know how many products actually contain it. In fact most don't even put it on their "ingredience" list because when a story broke on it it impacted sales. Enjoy your Diet Coke folks. Next!!
2. It is a proven fact that when the buffalo was a dying species and about to become extinct an outragous plan was put in place to try to save them since government regulations did nothing. They allowed private ownership of them. The logic being that anything owned by an individual or the private sector is a lot more likely to be cared for and cared about by that individual then some faceless government. Today we still got buffalos. There are also national parks which are in dire need of better care and there are groups out there ready and willing to take care of them. Next!!
3. You know the opposite was tried too. You know anything about socialist medicine? Probably not but I lived in Communist Hungary for 11 years. I know something about this subject. Lets just say that my family would strongly disagree with socialized medicare. I agree that if you think that just allow private medcine (or socialized meicare for that matter) to run on its own it won't work and it doesn't work. But who said that it would be allowed to get away with whatever they pleased? There is something called accountability, which doesn't exist in the US today.
You have to understand that many of these changes done on their own would not work and cannot work. Many of these changes need to be done in conjunction with other changes to the system to make it work.
Its called checks and balances.
Today the checks and balances just aren't there.
imported_Aelius
Golden Member
Fact is a lot of those mega corporations got where they are thanks to government, not in spite of it.
Fact is regulations are a joke. Today's courts are a joke. There is a difference with practicing law and accountability. Currently those two terms don't belong in the same courtroom.
Want to change that?
Monsta, you hit in on the head! What kills me is this take on 'self' regulation, self-help, self-charity, self...BS! Take a look at the Enron fisaco. Even with regulation, that situation still occured! I really don't see much difference between Libertarians and anarchy.
The problem with the Libertarian party is that it is a party with schizophrenia, but we have a populace that wants to take a position one way or the other. I think most people think it has a couple of good ideas (fiscal conservatism), but then you tell them about legalization of drugs and prostitution, and that's when you lose most people. Because of the vast ideological differences, it's really a party that appeals to no one (or very few). If you are going to vote for a third-party, you might as well select a third-party that you are more aligned with.
MonstaThrilla
Golden Member
What's your problem man?
Not by living in a world of largely unchecked corporate power, I don't. Your facts are correct, I won't argue them, however they demonstrate quite nicely our collective moral bankruptcy to which i alluded in my original post. The system is screwed up, because humans are screwed up. No system of gov't will ever fix that. Communism and anarcho-capitalism are two sides of the same coin, they both lead to totalitarianism and dehumanization.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
