Quoted: But none of what Cincinnatus posted from the 1970s and early 1980s is really all that important.  This is 2004.

Ummm, I posted quotes from the Libertarian Platform.... the 2004 Libetarian Platform.

1970s and 1980s?
Are you sure you haven't been indulging in a little of the Platform yourself? www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#warondru

[Libertarian] "I see things so much clearer now since they removed the part of my brain that deals with reality... !" [/Libertarian]

Quoted: He may hit that single hot button, but GWB hit all the rest and I can live with his silence.  Bednarik will not win and we know that.  Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton, and the original AWB.  I have not forgotton history.

Bednarik will not win. Why bother?

[Ross Perot]It's That Simple![/Ross Perot]

Oh gawd, I have *got* to get back to my work after this.

So, what are we supposed to do? Pass out wooden guns and hide behind our borders like we did int he 20's and 30's? IIRC, the Japanese gave us a 3,000-KIA wake-up call on 7/12/41. Isolationisim DOES NOT WORK, and being able to kick anyone's ass on the planet (or at least remove them from it) is the only way to ensure no one will ever kick yours, the other with social programs Which is why you vote GOP, to stop that from happening. Ruined is still ruined, either way. One is secure, stable, and safe. The other is 'ruined'

Secure, stable and safe does not equal "free and happy"
No isolationism.  But no imperialism, either.  The middle ground is free trade without government intervention (which we currently have plenty of and I would go as far  as saying "free trade" to neocons is really centrally controlled).  Killing foreigners is not going to lead to stable and safe, btw.

As I recall, there is pretty good evidence that FDR knew Pearl would be attacked and chose not to alert them.  Yes or no?

Dang it, nobody is listening, you are just making assumptions based on preconceived notions. How can anyone do that and be an informed voter? Judging by the extreme ignorance of history, perticularly military history, that you demonstrate here and in other threads, that is more applicable to you.

There is nothing wrong with my education in history.  I have a very good background in military history, in fact.  Just because you don't agree with me is no reason to attack my education.

If you don't like the service at a restaurant do you eat there again? If you do business with a gun dealer and he screws you over, do you go back to him? Why bother to make informed choices based on experience? We are. Our experience with Regan, W Bush, Clinton, and in some cases Carter says the GOP is the best party to lead this country at this time.

Something has changed though--the two parties are now representing basically the same thing:  Big Government.  There is no dissent on that matter.  There are just a lot of preconceived notions about what the stolen money should be spent upon, but no consideration for the matter of it being extracted by force in the first place.  

Use your FEET--they're your best weapon. Your best vote is the one you do with your feet! If something is so rotten, why not just walk away from it entirely? That's what our nation's founders had in mind. That's what they wanted us to do. Government for and by the people. Not for and by some narrow faction of self-interested neocons who are on some kind of crusade. What do we need assholes who walked off their cushy Air Guard duty for (while 58,000 good men died)? Flying fighters is not 'cushy'!. We have lost more pilots due to training back here than have been killed in combat since 9/11 Or assholes who give themselves medals for tiny scratches that REAL WORKING MEN endure on a daily basis and think nothing of? Agreed on Kerry

Flying fighters stateside was a heck of a lot more cushy than flying them over Vietnam.  But yes, training is dangerous, I concede that point.

Quoted: <snip> As I recall, there is pretty good evidence that FDR knew Pearl would be attacked and chose not to alert them.  Yes or no?

If you recall this, you are as big a nutcase as Badnarik. FDR had no advance warning of Pearl Harbor. Only tinfoil hat types EVER believed that crazy one.

Quoted: Secure, stable and safe does not equal "free and happy" No isolationism.  But no imperialism, either.  The middle ground is free trade without government intervention (which we currently have plenty of and I would go as far  as saying "free trade" to neocons is really centrally controlled).  Killing foreigners is not going to lead to stable and safe, btw. As I recall, there is pretty good evidence that FDR knew Pearl would be attacked and chose not to alert them.  Yes or no?

So what is your plan to protect the country from terrorists? So far, it sounds like you (and your party) want to gut the military, remove what little protection we have at the borders, and stop domestic intelligence gathering. Therefore, the only way to stop terrorist acts inside the US is if a CCWing citizen happens to spot it in time, and happens to have enough firepower to deal with a dozen terrorists.

Have you been listening to the terrorists? They don't want to be left alone, they want the entire world to either convert to Islam or die. Pulling out of the Middle East will only tell them that we are weak, and we won't hurt them if they come after us, thus encouraging them to attack more. These guys are out there, they want to kill us, and they're not going to just go away.

Quoted: Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. Huh? The Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and...the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Sorry if I'm off on a tangent here, but that comment just stood out at me.

The Electoral College system ensures and in fact NECESSITATES that there is at least one dominant political figure (or party as the case may be) as opposed to many diverse factions each garnering only slivers of popular support.

No one can win the presidential election by garnering only 30-40% of the electoral vote which is what would happen if there were ever MORE THAN TWO major political parties.

These are in stock again for those who would rather vote for somebody with a snowballs chance!

BigDozer66

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. Huh? The Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and...the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Sorry if I'm off on a tangent here, but that comment just stood out at me. The Electoral College system ensures and in fact NECESSITATES that there is at least one dominant political figure (or party as the case may be) as opposed to many diverse factions each garnering only slivers of popular support. No one can win the presidential election by garnering only 30-40% of the electoral vote which is what would happen if there were ever MORE THAN TWO major political parties.

Not really an accurate statement. The Constitution stipulates that if no one candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states with each state getting one vote, selects the President. See Amendment XII.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. Huh? The Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and...the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Sorry if I'm off on a tangent here, but that comment just stood out at me. The Electoral College system ensures and in fact NECESSITATES that there is at least one dominant political figure (or party as the case may be) as opposed to many diverse factions each garnering only slivers of popular support. No one can win the presidential election by garnering only 30-40% of the electoral vote which is what would happen if there were ever MORE THAN TWO major political parties. Not really an accurate statement. The Constitution stipulates that if no one candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states with each state getting one vote, selects the President. See Amendment XII.

And if there were three or four dominant parties, "throwing it to the House" would be the COMMON occurence rather than the rare occurence for which it is expected.

Having three or more dominant parties would realistically make the Electoral College system obsolete and turn EVERY presidential election into a House vote - and that doesn't seem to be what the FFs wanted (even though they did make an allowance for the possibility of a less-than-majority EC result as you pointed out).

If the FFs had expected and anticipated that there'd be three or more dominant parties/figures with each presidential election, they would not have created the Electoral College system (with its +50% requirement to win) to be the FIRST and main system to elect a President.

The FFs could have just as easily required a simply plurality of the EC vote, rather than a majority of the EC vote to become President. If they would have done that (and made any "ties" go to the House) then THAT would indicate that the FFs anticipated and expected a splintering of votes among 3 or 4 or more candidates/parties, IMO. But they didn't which, to me, indicates they anticipated presidential elections to be mainly a two-man election (with possible third candidates included but who would have very little ability to pick up even a single Electoral Vote a la Ross Perot.)




EDITED several times.

I can't forgive Reagan and Bush 41 for their '86 and '89 gun bans, I guess my long term memory is better than most! The Republicans have a long way to go to earn my vote again, and GW is not helping at all. I'll be voting for Badnarik in November. I'll vote for the Republicans again when they run a real conservative, not a liberal who calls himself a conservative. Let Kerry have the White House, he can't do too much worse than Bush. This is an unfortunate reality........

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. Huh? The Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and...the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Sorry if I'm off on a tangent here, but that comment just stood out at me. The Electoral College system ensures and in fact NECESSITATES that there is at least one dominant political figure (or party as the case may be) as opposed to many diverse factions each garnering only slivers of popular support. No one can win the presidential election by garnering only 30-40% of the electoral vote which is what would happen if there were ever MORE THAN TWO major political parties. Not really an accurate statement. The Constitution stipulates that if no one candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states with each state getting one vote, selects the President. See Amendment XII. And if there were three or four dominant parties, "throwing it to the House" would be the COMMON occurence rather than the rare occurence for which it is expected. Having three or more dominant parties would realistically make the Electoral College system obsolete and turn EVERY presidential election into a House vote - and that doesn't seem to be what the FFs wanted (even though they did make an allowance for the possibility of a less-than-majority EC result as you pointed out). If the FFs had expected and anticipated that there'd be three or more dominant parties/figures with each presidential election, they would not have created the Electoral College system (with its +50% requirement to win) to be the FIRST and main system to elect a President.

The Founding Fathers hoped there would be NO parties. Madison specifically argued that the best protection for freedom was a constantly changing coalition of temporary factional alignments. The idea of permanent parties was anathema to many, if not most, of the Founders. Read their repeated protests against the rising spirit of party during the early Republic.

Your argument that the Electoral College mandates a dominant political figure, or at most two parties, is an anachronism. It may have turned out to work that way, but that was never the intent.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. Huh? The Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and...the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Sorry if I'm off on a tangent here, but that comment just stood out at me. The Electoral College system ensures and in fact NECESSITATES that there is at least one dominant political figure (or party as the case may be) as opposed to many diverse factions each garnering only slivers of popular support. No one can win the presidential election by garnering only 30-40% of the electoral vote which is what would happen if there were ever MORE THAN TWO major political parties. Not really an accurate statement. The Constitution stipulates that if no one candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states with each state getting one vote, selects the President. See Amendment XII. And if there were three or four dominant parties, "throwing it to the House" would be the COMMON occurence rather than the rare occurence for which it is expected. Having three or more dominant parties would realistically make the Electoral College system obsolete and turn EVERY presidential election into a House vote - and that doesn't seem to be what the FFs wanted (even though they did make an allowance for the possibility of a less-than-majority EC result as you pointed out). If the FFs had expected and anticipated that there'd be three or more dominant parties/figures with each presidential election, they would not have created the Electoral College system (with its +50% requirement to win) to be the FIRST and main system to elect a President. The Founding Fathers hoped there would be NO parties. Madison specifically argued that the best protection for freedom was a constantly changing coalition of temporary factional alignments. The idea of permanent parties was anathema to many, if not most, of the Founders. Read their repeated protests against the rising spirit of party during the early Republic. Your argument that the Electoral College mandates a dominant political figure, or at most two parties, is an anachronism. It may have turned out to work that way, but that was never the intent.

Yes, certainly most of the FFs abhored political parties - which is why I tended to refer to "dominant figures" rather than "dominant parties". I guess I didn't make that clear.

For the point I was trying to make, it wasn't terribly important to address how a split of the Electoral College among three dominant figures was due to political "parties" - I was simply trying to show that there seems to be a built in dichotomous selection process in the Electoral College rather than relying on simple plurality.

To me, the Electoral College seems "designed" for a two-dominant-candidate presidential race, whether or not political parties are behind those two dominant candidates or not.

AGNTSA

Quoted: <snip> To me, the Electoral College seems "designed" for a two-candidate presidential race, whether or not political parties are behind those two dominant candidates or not.

Again, very anachronistic. Remember that under the original method, the top vote getter in the EC became President, and the second highest vote got VP. IN the very first election in which George Washington was not a candidate, we ended up with two bitter political rivals filling the top two posistions: Adams as President and Jefferson as VP. This problem the Founders quickly recognized and rectified by passing the XII Amendment.

The Electoral College was "designed" to filter the rough political opinions of the masses through a body of learned men, and to assure that even small states had a say in electing the President. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quoted: Oh gawd, I have *got* to get back to my work after this. So, what are we supposed to do? Pass out wooden guns and hide behind our borders like we did int he 20's and 30's? IIRC, the Japanese gave us a 3,000-KIA wake-up call on 7/12/41. Isolationisim DOES NOT WORK, and being able to kick anyone's ass on the planet (or at least remove them from it) is the only way to ensure no one will ever kick yours, the other with social programs Which is why you vote GOP, to stop that from happening. Ruined is still ruined, either way. One is secure, stable, and safe. The other is 'ruined' Secure, stable and safe does not equal "free and happy" No isolationism.  But no imperialism, either.   Well, I've seen what the Libertarians consider 'imperialisim'... And the only alternative to that is isolationisim. We are fighting a war that cannot be fought by Bill Clinton's 'AT&T Military' - we can't just reach out & blast someone, we need troops on the ground to go find them. Ground troops, perticularly with the mechanized equipment needed for urban warfare, don't move fast enough to base out of the USA, we need foreign bases on hand to keep forces near potential threats. Further, we can't just sit back and wait 'till we're attacked to take action. We need a pro-active campaign aimed at undermining the supply of future terrorists, which means we've got some countries to take over - we can;'t bomb terrorists into submission like they're leaders of a sovreign nation, we need to find them and kill them, but also take action to reduce the number of folks who want to be terrorists, and as I said before, some governments will need to be replaced. Call it imperialisim, fine... But it's what's needed right here, right now... The middle ground is free trade without government intervention (which we currently have plenty of and I would go as far  as saying "free trade" to neocons is really centrally controlled).  Killing foreigners is not going to lead to stable and safe, btw. IIRC, Libertarians are anti-free trade, pro tarriff, anti-outsourcing. Or at least every Libertarian I've ever met has been As I recall, there is pretty good evidence that FDR knew Pearl would be attacked and chose not to alert them.  Yes or no? Not unless you believe we also blew up the Towers & Pentagon with 2 remotely piloted empty airplanes and a cruise missile Dang it, nobody is listening, you are just making assumptions based on preconceived notions. How can anyone do that and be an informed voter? Judging by the extreme ignorance of history, perticularly military history, that you demonstrate here and in other threads, that is more applicable to you. There is nothing wrong with my education in history.  I have a very good background in military history, in fact.  Just because you don't agree with me is no reason to attack my education. I seem to remember a thread where you joined certain members of this board in expressing the belief that a guerilla war (like the one we're fighting against AQ, the one in Iraq, or the one in Russia) could be won by massed indescriminate firepower. That is the source of this comment If you don't like the service at a restaurant do you eat there again? If you do business with a gun dealer and he screws you over, do you go back to him? Why bother to make informed choices based on experience? We are. Our experience with Regan, W Bush, Clinton, and in some cases Carter says the GOP is the best party to lead this country at this time. Something has changed though--the two parties are now representing basically the same thing:  Big Government.  A big military requires a big government to support it. And right now, we need a bigger military. There is no dissent on that matter.  There are just a lot of preconceived notions about what the stolen money According to the Constitution it is not stolen. Tax protestors are wrong, and within a few years hopefully Bush will have gotten the tax cose reformed to the point where all the 'how taxes are voluntary' crap will be explicitly illegalp should be spent upon, but no consideration for the matter of it being extracted by force in the first place.  Because the folks who built the system were realists, and understood the depravity of human nature. Unless you force people to contribute to the well being of the nation, especially in matters of finance, no one will Use your FEET--they're your best weapon. Your best vote is the one you do with your feet! If something is so rotten, why not just walk away from it entirely? That's what our nation's founders had in mind. That's what they wanted us to do. Government for and by the people. Not for and by some narrow faction of self-interested neocons who are on some kind of crusade. What do we need assholes who walked off their cushy Air Guard duty for (while 58,000 good men died)? Flying fighters is not 'cushy'!. We have lost more pilots due to training back here than have been killed in combat since 9/11 Or assholes who give themselves medals for tiny scratches that REAL WORKING MEN endure on a daily basis and think nothing of? Agreed on Kerry Flying fighters stateside was a heck of a lot more cushy than flying them over Vietnam.  But yes, training is dangerous, I concede that point.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> To me, the Electoral College seems "designed" for a two-candidate presidential race, whether or not political parties are behind those two dominant candidates or not. Again, very anachronistic. Remember that under the original method, the top vote getter in the EC became President, and the second highest vote got VP. IN the very first election in which George Washington was not a candidate, we ended up with two bitter political rivals filling the top two posistions: Adams as President and Jefferson as VP. This problem the Founders quickly recognized and rectified by passing the XII Amendment. The Electoral College was "designed" to filter the rough political opinions of the masses through a body of learned men, and to assure that even small states had a say in electing the President. Nothing more, nothing less.

So are you saying that you think the EC itself is anachronistic and should be replaced with a more direct-election system???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Secure, stable and safe does not equal "free and happy" No isolationism.  But no imperialism, either.  The middle ground is free trade without government intervention (which we currently have plenty of and I would go as far  as saying "free trade" to neocons is really centrally controlled).  Killing foreigners is not going to lead to stable and safe, btw. As I recall, there is pretty good evidence that FDR knew Pearl would be attacked and chose not to alert them.  Yes or no? So what is your plan to protect the country from terrorists? So far, it sounds like you (and your party) want to gut the military, remove what little protection we have at the borders, and stop domestic intelligence gathering. Therefore, the only way to stop terrorist acts inside the US is if a CCWing citizen happens to spot it in time, and happens to have enough firepower to deal with a dozen terrorists. Have you been listening to the terrorists? They don't want to be left alone, they want the entire world to either convert to Islam or die. Pulling out of the Middle East will only tell them that we are weak, and we won't hurt them if they come after us, thus encouraging them to attack more. These guys are out there, they want to kill us, and they're not going to just go away. Well--I can see you know nothing about LIBertarian philosophy--we will just dissolve all country borders, eliminate national sovereignty, move freely around the world doing "our own thing," smoke dope, get mellow and sing "Kumbaya."  It's all about freedom and "liberty."  No hate, man, that would infringe upon the rights of others--so it would just not exist.  We wouldn't force it upon anyone, they will just decide to respect the liberty of others (for reasons that have never been addressed).   Edit:  Lest I be taken seriously, this post was in jest--but reflects real LIBertarian doctrine.

Correct.

Libertarianisim is Anarcho-Socialisim resurrected...

It's the ultimate hippie philosophy - belief in the nobility of man, if only we can get rid of government everyone will be good to each other and we can all live together in harmonious paradise...

It's another theory which leads to the same place as communisim (Marx & Lenin called it 'Pure Communisim'), just by a different route and with a different version of the same 'evil' to be avoided...

If you look at the two philosophies, they are both built on guarding against the same thing.

The difference is that the Commies thought it came from private industry & capitalisim.

The Libertarians believe it came from Government.

(Oh, and yes, I've heard the 'neoconservatives are marxists' line before, and I can assure you we are not)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> To me, the Electoral College seems "designed" for a two-candidate presidential race, whether or not political parties are behind those two dominant candidates or not. Again, very anachronistic. Remember that under the original method, the top vote getter in the EC became President, and the second highest vote got VP. IN the very first election in which George Washington was not a candidate, we ended up with two bitter political rivals filling the top two posistions: Adams as President and Jefferson as VP. This problem the Founders quickly recognized and rectified by passing the XII Amendment. The Electoral College was "designed" to filter the rough political opinions of the masses through a body of learned men, and to assure that even small states had a say in electing the President. Nothing more, nothing less. So are you saying that you think the EC itself is anachronistic and should be replaced with a more direct-election system???

No, I am saying your view is an anachronism. You are projecting what happened much later onto a historical event.

Still....people....COME TO YOUR SENSES.

I keep hearing some of you claim that it's OK to vote Libertarian at the "local level", or if your state will overwhelmingly go for Bush, or that the reason NOT to vote Libertarian is because they have no chance of winning. This suggests that it would somehow be a good idea to vote Libertarian if they could win?
Are you people insane?

The reason to NOT vote Libertarian, is that they advocate ideas that would be a death sentence to our Country.
It doesn't matter that they have a great stance on RKBA.
That is myopic and suicidal.  

When you vote Libertarian, the only message you send is that you are a fool.

On 3rd parties, period:

The biggest problem with a more-then-2-party system is not how the Presidency is decided.

It is the organization of the House and Senate.

Right now, you KNOW FOR A FACT that even if you put a RINO in Congress, they will vote with the (R)s for the organization of the Congress, and put men like Hastert, Armey, and DeLay in power.

IF WE HAD 3+ PARTIES REPRESENTED, THIS WOULD NOT BE TRUE!

We would have European-style 'coalition government'.

Let's say that in a hypothetical election, the Libertarians give up their pipe dream of getting the Presidency first, and get 10% of Congress.

Now, all of you 'conservative' Libertarians have a Big Problem!!!

Why?

Because you have no clue who you just put in power! You see, the (L)s will have to form a coalition with the (D)s or (R)s, and the leadership of the Congress will still be (D)s or (R)s, not (L)s...

Now, which party is 'your' party going to side with?

They agree with the Dems on the war/defense & abortion

The Republicans on guns & (partially) taxes

How do you know, when you cast a vote, who you are putting in power?

Right now, as above, voting for a (R) is voting for the House to be run by a bunch of Southern & Western Conservatives, even if you are putting Rudy 'The RINO' Guliani in office up in NY...

But if we start seeing mass 3rd-party representation, we will no longer know for sure who will take over, or what a party may do to stay in power (eg Flip\|/Flop over to the other side to keep power for the members)....

Quoted: He has my vote!!

Sucker

Badnarik still has my vote. I might vote Republican when Reagans '86 and Bushs '89 bans go away. The Republicans issues are not my issues. Don't get angry at me, that accomplishes nothing. Bitch to the Republicans for not being real conservatives!

So because the republicans aren't conservative enough for you, you'll cast your vote for a guy who endorses:

1) "The elimination of ALL restrictions on immigration, the ABOLITION of the Immigration and Naturalization Service AND the Border Patrol"

2) "Members of the military should have the same RIGHT TO QUIT their jobs as other persons"

3) "the REPEAL of the Uniform Code of Military Justice"

4) "End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above."

(...in other words, our defense starts at our border. See above {#1 } for how the Libertarians intend to defend the borders)


That's not very intelligent.
How could I be angry with you?
It's not your fault.  You're just a little slow.    

Quoted: Don't get angry at me, that accomplishes nothing.

I am not angry with you.  I do pity you.