Vote for any 3rd party.

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Genesys
im with ya Kain, i'll be voting Constitutional myself. i've been entertaining the idea of getting some of the Constitutional literature and distributing it around my town...

Awesome? though it?s amazing to see 2 people who?ll vote that way in the same place

The constitutional party won?t be the popular party until we wakeup to how many of our rights have been usurped.

vote for anyone but Kerry

lol, Shh!

 

[kage69]

I'd love to vote 3rd party, unfortunetly that would help Bush, and there's no way in hell I'll do that. President Cheney needs to go, end of story.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I think that if Badnarik or Nader had as much money as Ross Perot, they could get millions more votes as well. But they don't.

If they had more money, they'd likely get a few more votes, but 3rd party candidates aren't held back by some conspiracy of the two major parties; they're held back by the fact their ideas are pretty far beyond the mainstream. This isn't to say 3rd party ideas aren't good (I agree with much of the libertarian platform), but they're way too radical for the stupid, lazy, apathetic, nanny-state-loving American public.

For example, here's part of the Libertarian platform regarding Social Security:

The Principle: In a free society, retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.

Solutions: We favor replacing the current fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, government sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system.

That's all well and good, and I fully agree, but it's also political suicide. People just don't want to be handed control of their own life like that.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I think that if Badnarik or Nader had as much money as Ross Perot, they could get millions more votes as well. But they don't.

If they had more money, they'd likely get a few more votes, but 3rd party candidates aren't held back by some conspiracy of the two major parties; they're held back by the fact their ideas are pretty far beyond the mainstream. This isn't to say 3rd party ideas aren't good (I agree with much of the libertarian platform), but they're way too radical for the stupid, lazy, apathetic, nanny-state-loving American public.

For example, here's part of the Libertarian platform regarding Social Security:

The Principle: In a free society, retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.

Solutions: We favor replacing the current fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, government sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system.

That's all well and good, and I fully agree, but it's also political suicide. People just don't want to be handed control of their own life like that.

They may have to.

I agree that the LP's platform is too "radical" for the conservative socialists. But I think that there are millions of people out there (especially young people) who absolutely hate social security. In fact I don't think I have ever talked to someone who was a big proponent of it.

In any event, I think Badnarik could pick up more that a "few extra votes" if he had enough money to run a big campaign. He just doesn't have very much coverage, and a lot of people haven't even heard of the LP before.

To be honest though, libtertarianism is largely an intellectual movement. Some libertarian factions like the
Voluntaryists don't believe in the political process at all, in fact.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I think that if Badnarik or Nader had as much money as Ross Perot, they could get millions more votes as well. But they don't.

If they had more money, they'd likely get a few more votes, but 3rd party candidates aren't held back by some conspiracy of the two major parties; they're held back by the fact their ideas are pretty far beyond the mainstream. This isn't to say 3rd party ideas aren't good (I agree with much of the libertarian platform), but they're way too radical for the stupid, lazy, apathetic, nanny-state-loving American public.

For example, here's part of the Libertarian platform regarding Social Security:

The Principle: In a free society, retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.

Solutions: We favor replacing the current fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, government sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system.

That's all well and good, and I fully agree, but it's also political suicide. People just don't want to be handed control of their own life like that.

They may have to.

I agree that the LP's platform is too "radical" for the conservative socialists. But I think that there are millions of people out there (especially young people) who absolutely hate social security. In fact I don't think I have ever talked to someone who was a big proponent of it.

In any event, I think Badnarik could pick up more that a "few extra votes" if he had enough money to run a big campaign. He just doesn't have very much coverage, and a lot of people haven't even heard of the LP before.

The Social Security/Medicare crisis is way off, so no one cares. It's like the terrorist threat - we were happy with blissful ignorance until our buildings started coming down.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I think that if Badnarik or Nader had as much money as Ross Perot, they could get millions more votes as well. But they don't.

If they had more money, they'd likely get a few more votes, but 3rd party candidates aren't held back by some conspiracy of the two major parties; they're held back by the fact their ideas are pretty far beyond the mainstream. This isn't to say 3rd party ideas aren't good (I agree with much of the libertarian platform), but they're way too radical for the stupid, lazy, apathetic, nanny-state-loving American public.

For example, here's part of the Libertarian platform regarding Social Security:

The Principle: In a free society, retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.

Solutions: We favor replacing the current fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, government sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system.

That's all well and good, and I fully agree, but it's also political suicide. People just don't want to be handed control of their own life like that.

They may have to.

I agree that the LP's platform is too "radical" for the conservative socialists. But I think that there are millions of people out there (especially young people) who absolutely hate social security. In fact I don't think I have ever talked to someone who was a big proponent of it.

In any event, I think Badnarik could pick up more that a "few extra votes" if he had enough money to run a big campaign. He just doesn't have very much coverage, and a lot of people haven't even heard of the LP before.

The Social Security/Medicare crisis is way off, so no one cares. It's like the terrorist threat - we were happy with blissful ignorance until our buildings started coming down.

You are right, 2030 is when it will begin. But there is no way it is going to magically go away between now and then, a $45 trillion gap can't just be wished away. Myself and others my age will be retiring around 2040, and what will be left of SS by then? Probably nothing.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I think that if Badnarik or Nader had as much money as Ross Perot, they could get millions more votes as well. But they don't.

If they had more money, they'd likely get a few more votes, but 3rd party candidates aren't held back by some conspiracy of the two major parties; they're held back by the fact their ideas are pretty far beyond the mainstream. This isn't to say 3rd party ideas aren't good (I agree with much of the libertarian platform), but they're way too radical for the stupid, lazy, apathetic, nanny-state-loving American public.

For example, here's part of the Libertarian platform regarding Social Security:

The Principle: In a free society, retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.

Solutions: We favor replacing the current fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, government sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system.

That's all well and good, and I fully agree, but it's also political suicide. People just don't want to be handed control of their own life like that.

They may have to.

I agree that the LP's platform is too "radical" for the conservative socialists. But I think that there are millions of people out there (especially young people) who absolutely hate social security. In fact I don't think I have ever talked to someone who was a big proponent of it.

In any event, I think Badnarik could pick up more that a "few extra votes" if he had enough money to run a big campaign. He just doesn't have very much coverage, and a lot of people haven't even heard of the LP before.

To be honest though, libtertarianism is largely an intellectual movement. Some libertarian factions like the
Voluntaryists don't believe in the political process at all, in fact.

Here's hoping that Badnarik is GWB's nader

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I think that if Badnarik or Nader had as much money as Ross Perot, they could get millions more votes as well. But they don't.

If they had more money, they'd likely get a few more votes, but 3rd party candidates aren't held back by some conspiracy of the two major parties; they're held back by the fact their ideas are pretty far beyond the mainstream. This isn't to say 3rd party ideas aren't good (I agree with much of the libertarian platform), but they're way too radical for the stupid, lazy, apathetic, nanny-state-loving American public.

For example, here's part of the Libertarian platform regarding Social Security:

The Principle: In a free society, retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.

Solutions: We favor replacing the current fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, government sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system.

That's all well and good, and I fully agree, but it's also political suicide. People just don't want to be handed control of their own life like that.

They may have to.

I agree that the LP's platform is too "radical" for the conservative socialists. But I think that there are millions of people out there (especially young people) who absolutely hate social security. In fact I don't think I have ever talked to someone who was a big proponent of it.

In any event, I think Badnarik could pick up more that a "few extra votes" if he had enough money to run a big campaign. He just doesn't have very much coverage, and a lot of people haven't even heard of the LP before.

To be honest though, libtertarianism is largely an intellectual movement. Some libertarian factions like the
Voluntaryists don't believe in the political process at all, in fact.

Here's hoping that Badnarik is GWB's nader

Kerry must love the fact that Badnarik is on the ballot in NM but not Nader. I think it would be great if Badnarik lost the election for Bush. That way the Republican party would actually have to think about reforming its platform in order to get elected. Right now the Republican party cannot lay ANY claim to fiscal conservatism whatsoever.

 

[1EZduzit]

I personally think a third party is a bad idea. Can you imnagine what a mess congress would be with 3 parties? How about a President with only 34% of the popular vote. He could easily lose the electoral vote. I like the good old "majority rules" system.

Even with a third party it would be same old thing, the "haves" against the "have nots". The "have nots" are willing to share with the "haves" and say it is the humanitarian thing to do and then sit around and whine about it until somebody throws them a bone.

The "haves" cry foul and say you have earn your own damn way. Everybody has to be worth their salt. Which is the way it should be, but the problem with that is the "haves" use every trick in the book (lie, cheat and swindle to name a few) and then some to make sure they remain "haves" and to hold the "have nots" down and prevent them from ever getting any real money. Sure, some of them make it, but it takes a lot of luck, hard work, and planning, none of which guarantee's any success. No matter what the "haves" say, luck has a lot to do with it.

Not all "haves" or "have nots" fit into this generalization. Also, some people do not think they are "have nots" when they really are and vice versa for the "haves". I know people eho don't have a pot to piss in in or a window to throw it out of that consider themselves "haves" and people who have it made and just don't know it that think they are "have nots". It is a matter of perception by each individual.

Of course, most of the "haves" are better educated (not neccesarily smarter) then the "have nots" and generally have better jobs and better pay. They then justify in their own minds that it is only fitting, they earned it. The have nots don't care how the "haves" got it, they are jealous of the "haves" and justify in their minds that it isn't fair.

LOL, I guess that is the way it is and always will be. I just don't see how a third party would change it. The first thing the third party leadership would do once in power is to entrench themselves in as much power (and money) as they could (after all they have the right plan, right?), the same as the leadership of the other two parties do.

And the moral of this fairy tale? Always be willing to share......with someone who has more then you.

 

[0marTheZealot]

It's simply about choice 1ezduzit. Right now, we have two practically identical parties that only fufill their own interests and the interests of lobbyists. Very, very few policies in effect help out the average man. Most of everything goes towards the big businesses. If we had 3 or 4 or 5 other parties, our interests could be represented far more fully than just with 2 parties.

 

[Stunt]

in a 3 party system, the winner rarely gets 34%...besides is this THAT much better than winning with less than your opponant?...or with 49% or less?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
It's simply about choice 1ezduzit. Right now, we have two practically identical parties that only fufill their own interests and the interests of lobbyists. Very, very few policies in effect help out the average man. Most of everything goes towards the big businesses. If we had 3 or 4 or 5 other parties, our interests could be represented far more fully than just with 2 parties.

I understand the logic that more parties will equal more choices and we could then arrive at our desired destination with less elections (time). I also understand the assumption that more parties would make the parties more competitive for your vote. It sounds good in theory, but I doubt if we would realize that potential in practice. I think it would eventually end up with just 2 parties again as alliances were forged in order to get things done. It might end up being a "special interests" bonanza.

Congress can't get anything done with 2 parties. Would having 5 parties make it better? I jsut don't see it. I believe we are better off trying to change the parties we have now. If they can't be changed internally then throw the bums out after one term and put the competition back in until they wise up. I would rather see the term limits shortened.

200 years ago things were a lot slower and not that much could happen in a 2 year or even 4 year period as compared to now. If these jokers knew that they'd be up for election every year and we would still have fresh in our minds what they did that year I think they would have to clean up their acts. I think things would change fast then!!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
It's simply about choice 1ezduzit. Right now, we have two practically identical parties that only fufill their own interests and the interests of lobbyists. Very, very few policies in effect help out the average man. Most of everything goes towards the big businesses. If we had 3 or 4 or 5 other parties, our interests could be represented far more fully than just with 2 parties.

I understand the logic that more parties will equal more choices and we could then arrive at our desired destination with less elections (time). I also understand the assumption that more parties would make the parties more competitive for your vote. It sounds good in theory, but I doubt if we would realize that potential in practice. I think it would eventually end up with just 2 parties again as alliances were forged in order to get things done. It might end up being a "special interests" bonanza.

Congress can't get anything done with 2 parties. Would having 5 parties make it better? I jsut don't see it. I believe we are better off trying to change the parties we have now. If they can't be changed internally then throw the bums out after one term and put the competition back in until they wise up. I would rather see the term limits shortened.

200 years ago things were a lot slower and not that much could happen in a 2 year or even 4 year period as compared to now. If these jokers knew that they'd be up for election every year and we would still have fresh in our minds what they did that year I think they would have to clean up their acts. I think things would change fast then!!

Better yet, why not just eliminate their offices altogether?

 

[1EZduzit]

I live in a rural state and only one representive in congress. I guess we need somebody there to represent us, just as long as he is listening to the people and is accounatable via elections. Otherwise it would just be a dictatorship?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I live in a rural state and only one representive in congress. I guess we need somebody there to represent us, just as long as he is listening to the people and is accounatable via elections. Otherwise it would just be a dictatorship?

No, eliminate the federal government and you won't have a dictatorship, just state governments. I don't see what's so bad about that. Do YOU honestly feel you get something from the feds? I don't. I get nothing but payroll taxes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I personally think a third party is a bad idea. Can you imnagine what a mess congress would be with 3 parties? How about a President with only 34% of the popular vote. He could easily lose the electoral vote. I like the good old "majority rules" system.

Even with a third party it would be same old thing, the "haves" against the "have nots". The "have nots" are willing to share with the "haves" and say it is the humanitarian thing to do and then sit around and whine about it until somebody throws them a bone.

The "haves" cry foul and say you have earn your own damn way. Everybody has to be worth their salt. Which is the way it should be, but the problem with that is the "haves" use every trick in the book (lie, cheat and swindle to name a few) and then some to make sure they remain "haves" and to hold the "have nots" down and prevent them from ever getting any real money. Sure, some of them make it, but it takes a lot of luck, hard work, and planning, none of which guarantee's any success. No matter what the "haves" say, luck has a lot to do with it.

Not all "haves" or "have nots" fit into this generalization. Also, some people do not think they are "have nots" when they really are and vice versa for the "haves". I know people eho don't have a pot to piss in in or a window to throw it out of that consider themselves "haves" and people who have it made and just don't know it that think they are "have nots". It is a matter of perception by each individual.

Of course, most of the "haves" are better educated (not neccesarily smarter) then the "have nots" and generally have better jobs and better pay. They then justify in their own minds that it is only fitting, they earned it. The have nots don't care how the "haves" got it, they are jealous of the "haves" and justify in their minds that it isn't fair.

LOL, I guess that is the way it is and always will be. I just don't see how a third party would change it. The first thing the third party leadership would do once in power is to entrench themselves in as much power (and money) as they could (after all they have the right plan, right?), the same as the leadership of the other two parties do.

And the moral of this fairy tale? Always be willing to share......with someone who has more then you.

If you count all Eligible Voters, the President is already chosen by less than 34% of Voters. Giving more choices might compel more to Vote.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: sandorski

If you count all Eligible Voters, the President is already chosen by less than 34% of Voters. Giving more choices might compel more to Vote.

Hey, I'm all for choices!! And for getting more people to vote. A third party would help in the short term if it could get going, but what would the third party use as it's platform? It probably still wouldn't give me all the choices that I think are the right ones and I still think that in the long run it would either go down in flames or end up merging with one of the existing parties.

Democracy is really about compromise in my opinion and two parties are enough if we could figure out how to get rid of the corruption in the system. I think we have two main problems, the special interest groups who are basically "buying" the laws shaped the way they want and the entrenched incumbents who are out to raise more campaign funds to insure their re-election. That is where are efforts to change things should be foucused.

I think MaCain was serious about campaign cpntribution reform and if he ever gets his parties nomination I will vote for him. The current Republican that controll Congress have a lot of members who said they would limit there terms if elected. Guess what, they got elelcted and then changed their minds about limiting their terms. Surprise, surprise, surprise!! Imagine that!! LOL

We need a constitutional amendment to put term limits in and IMO shorten the length of the terms. I think 1 year for a congressman and and 3 years for a senator. I haven't really put a lot of thought into the lengths, but those numbers sound good for just coming off the top of my head. If the term limits were in then I think 4 terms should be the limit. That would be 4 yearts for a congressman and 12 years for a senator if they were doing a good enough job to be re-elected. I would leave the Presidential term at 4 years and 2 terms as it now is to keep some stability because it would lose some because of the shorter limits of the Congress.

This would make the legislators much more accountable for their actions then they are now and that is what we all want, isn't it? It's all just a pipe dream anyway and will never happen anymore then a viable 3rd party will ever come about, but I think coupled with campaign fund reform that it would straighten out the corrupted system we now have and in a short time. In the meantime, someone who has a good plan to do something about the campaign funding will get my vote. That's a good start, divide and conquer!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I live in a rural state and only one representive in congress. I guess we need somebody there to represent us, just as long as he is listening to the people and is accounatable via elections. Otherwise it would just be a dictatorship?

No, eliminate the federal government and you won't have a dictatorship, just state governments. I don't see what's so bad about that. Do YOU honestly feel you get something from the feds? I don't. I get nothing but payroll taxes.

Are you pulling my leg??

How would we defend ourselves? In my opinion that is the number one function of a federal goverment.

Look at Europe, they are a bunch of state sized countires and they are hooking up together with the Euro dollar and removing trade barriers between countries. It's about timetoo, so that they don't start WWIII. Remember WWI and WWII started over there. We sure don't need a war over here because the states are fighting over this or that.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I live in a rural state and only one representive in congress. I guess we need somebody there to represent us, just as long as he is listening to the people and is accounatable via elections. Otherwise it would just be a dictatorship?

No, eliminate the federal government and you won't have a dictatorship, just state governments. I don't see what's so bad about that. Do YOU honestly feel you get something from the feds? I don't. I get nothing but payroll taxes.

Are you pulling my leg??

How would we defend ourselves? In my opinion that is the number one function of a federal goverment.

Look at Europe, they are a bunch of state sized countires and they are hooking up together with the Euro dollar and removing trade barriers between countries. It's about timetoo, so that they don't start WWIII. Remember WWI and WWII started over there. We sure don't need a war over here because the states are fighting over this or that.

This book has the answers to your question.

But thank you for revealing the fact that the federal government is really just an entity founded on fear.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Of course, if you are in one of the battle ground states: choose the lesser of two evils.

But as a member of the other states please vote for one of the third party candidates, anyone. Even if they get no electoral votes, voting for a 3rd party candidate will help them do better in the next election by helping them qualify for federal matching funds. Voting for a third party is the only way to make your vote truly count in a non-battleground state.

In order of 2000 results:

1. Green Party - 2,882,955 (2.735%)

2. Reform Party - 448,895 (0.426%)

3. Libertarian Party - 384,431 (0.365%)

4. Constitution Party - 98,020 (0.093%)

5. Natural Law Party - 83,714 (0.079%)

6. Socialist Workers Party - 7,378 (0.007%)

I'm voting Constitutional Party but that's not for but .1% of the nation.

No matter who you are or what you believe is important, we need to rotate out our current compromised parties.

Interesting, I'm gonna read up on this some more when I get home. Personally, I'm a Libertarian. From what I've read thus far, the Constitutional Party, Green Peace, and Natural Party have many views that are in line with Libertarianism. In the poll I said I'm gonna vote Libertarian, but chances are I'm not going to vote at all.

Edit: I just want to add that the word that best describes the Socialist Workers Party is Lunacy. They're proposing this (i'm gonna use an analogy):

PersonA wants to hire someone to cut the grass for $10 an hour. PersonB takes the job(accepting the wage -- if he thinks it's inadequit then he shouldn't take that job), then that new employee, PersonB, demands to be paid more, wants the owner to buy new equipment, give him food, hire back the guy that cut the grass last week, or else he wouldn't work and/or will file a law suit against PersonA (the employer) if he doesn't comply with the worker's demands.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I live in a rural state and only one representive in congress. I guess we need somebody there to represent us, just as long as he is listening to the people and is accounatable via elections. Otherwise it would just be a dictatorship?

No, eliminate the federal government and you won't have a dictatorship, just state governments. I don't see what's so bad about that. Do YOU honestly feel you get something from the feds? I don't. I get nothing but payroll taxes.

Are you pulling my leg??

How would we defend ourselves? In my opinion that is the number one function of a federal goverment.

Look at Europe, they are a bunch of state sized countires and they are hooking up together with the Euro dollar and removing trade barriers between countries. It's about timetoo, so that they don't start WWIII. Remember WWI and WWII started over there. We sure don't need a war over here because the states are fighting over this or that.

This book has the answers to your question.

But thank you for revealing the fact that the federal government is really just an entity founded on fear.

Your welcome. What did I do??

I can understand that the countries of the EC have given up on nationalism (rightfully so I think), but they are defended by NATO. I'm not that well informed about this, but NATO is basically us so if we give up our federal goverment how will we be able to defend ourselves?

Who will be in control of the army/navy/air force, the CIA, the nuclear devices, the nerve gas, etc.? How can we just dismantle all that and be safe?

I also inderstand that war is obsolete. In this day of nukes and nerve gas, we can't even think of having a "real" war with anyone, but that won't stop the fanatics from attacking us. All sane goverments will only fight when attacked, but we have plenty of insane people in the world.

I really don't have the time to read the book, but if you could give me the scoop on it in a nutshell and it makes sense to me, I may find the time.
.
Thanks,

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I live in a rural state and only one representive in congress. I guess we need somebody there to represent us, just as long as he is listening to the people and is accounatable via elections. Otherwise it would just be a dictatorship?

No, eliminate the federal government and you won't have a dictatorship, just state governments. I don't see what's so bad about that. Do YOU honestly feel you get something from the feds? I don't. I get nothing but payroll taxes.

Are you pulling my leg??

How would we defend ourselves? In my opinion that is the number one function of a federal goverment.

Look at Europe, they are a bunch of state sized countires and they are hooking up together with the Euro dollar and removing trade barriers between countries. It's about timetoo, so that they don't start WWIII. Remember WWI and WWII started over there. We sure don't need a war over here because the states are fighting over this or that.

This book has the answers to your question.

But thank you for revealing the fact that the federal government is really just an entity founded on fear.

Your welcome. What did I do??

I can understand that the countries of the EC have given up on nationalism (rightfully so I think), but they are defended by NATO. I'm not that well informed about this, but NATO is basically us so if we give up our federal goverment how will we be able to defend ourselves?

Who will be in control of the army/navy/air force, the CIA, the nuclear devices, the nerve gas, etc.? How can we just dismantle all that and be safe?

I also inderstand that war is obsolete. In this day of nukes and nerve gas, we can't even think of having a "real" war with anyone, but that won't stop the fanatics from attacking us. All sane goverments will only fight when attacked, but we have plenty of insane people in the world.

I really don't have the time to read the book, but if you could give me the scoop on it in a nutshell and it makes sense to me, I may find the time.
.
Thanks,

You can read the reviews on amazon.com to see what the book is about. It is basically a series of essays by Austrian economists and anarcho-capitalists that make the case that the federal government need not be involved in the production of defense.

However, I can tell you right now, we don't need a defense budget of half a trillion dollars. This is just crazy. Assuming we retain the federal government as a provider of defense, it could successfully defend the country on a budget of about $40 billion a year. Of course the military welfare that the U.S. provides throughout the world would have to end, and rightfully so.

 

[1EZduzit]

You can read the reviews on amazon.com to see what the book is about. It is basically a series of essays by Austrian economists and anarcho-capitalists that make the case that the federal government need not be involved in the production of defense.

However, I can tell you right now, we don't need a defense budget of half a trillion dollars. This is just crazy. Assuming we retain the federal government as a provider of defense, it could successfully defend the country on a budget of about $40 billion a year. Of course the military welfare that the U.S. provides throughout the world would have to end, and rightfully so.

I would have to agree that there is so much waste in the defense dept that it would shock us to death if we even knew the half of it. They tried a whistle blower program to stop the $100 hammer BS that was the standard practice (and probably still is). Nothing came from it becasue all the people who blew the whistle suddenly had their careers ruined. As you say, it's a half trillion dollar business. What did we call it back in the day, the "industrial/military complex" I believe. How are you going to reform it, it's top secret, LOL.

One thing to keep in mind. My father was in WWII. Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor 2 of his friends (they both happened to end up his brother-in-laws) enlisted in the Navy. He was going to enlist too, but his Father pulled him aside and told him that if he would just listen to him and wait 6 months before enlisting, he would never have to listen to him again.

Well, I don't think he made 6 months, but his 2 friends were both in the Phillipines when it fell and they both were in the infamous Bataan Death March and spent the whole war as POW's. Dad joined the Marines and ended up going to Guadalcanal, which was pretty touch and go for a while. He told me that when he left to fight at Guadalcanal, he had a WWI gun and a WWI helment. Since then he has been a strong believer in a strong defense.

My point is that it is just too important to leave to chance. Whatever else may come, if you don't have a strong defense it could be your last mistake.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

You can read the reviews on amazon.com to see what the book is about. It is basically a series of essays by Austrian economists and anarcho-capitalists that make the case that the federal government need not be involved in the production of defense.

However, I can tell you right now, we don't need a defense budget of half a trillion dollars. This is just crazy. Assuming we retain the federal government as a provider of defense, it could successfully defend the country on a budget of about $40 billion a year. Of course the military welfare that the U.S. provides throughout the world would have to end, and rightfully so.

My point is that it is just too important to leave to chance. Whatever else may come, if you don't have a strong defense it could be your last mistake.

I agree, but like I said before, it doesn't take half a trillion dollars to have a strong defense. By the way, the U.S. has a defense budget that is greater than the defense budgets of the next 20 nations combined. There is no one in the world that can threaten us in terms of military strength, and there still wouldn't even if the military budget was slashed significantly.

Our military actions are now offensive, not defensive, to say the least, and military operations have now facilitated welfare handouts to foreigners who hate us. There are commanders in Iraq walking around with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars just handing it out to people on the street. Not only that, but the U.S. is subsidizing gas to the tune of half a billion dollars. Iraqis get gas for 5 cents a gallon, while everyone here pays $2.00+. This is insanity. The foreign welfare and the attempt at being the world's policemen needs to end. Hopefully it WILL end if Bush is out of office, but somehow I don't think it will.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Of course, if you are in one of the battle ground states: choose the lesser of two evils.

But as a member of the other states please vote for one of the third party candidates, anyone. Even if they get no electoral votes, voting for a 3rd party candidate will help them do better in the next election by helping them qualify for federal matching funds. Voting for a third party is the only way to make your vote truly count in a non-battleground state.

In order of 2000 results:

1. Green Party - 2,882,955 (2.735%)

2. Reform Party - 448,895 (0.426%)

3. Libertarian Party - 384,431 (0.365%)

4. Constitution Party - 98,020 (0.093%)

5. Natural Law Party - 83,714 (0.079%)

6. Socialist Workers Party - 7,378 (0.007%)

I'm voting Constitutional Party but that's not for but .1% of the nation.

No matter who you are or what you believe is important, we need to rotate out our current compromised parties.

Interesting, I'm gonna read up on this some more when I get home. Personally, I'm a Libertarian. From what I've read thus far, the Constitutional Party, Green Peace, and Natural Party have many views that are in line with Libertarianism. In the poll I said I'm gonna vote Libertarian, but chances are I'm not going to vote at all.

Edit: I just want to add that the word that best describes the Socialist Workers Party is Lunacy. They're proposing this (i'm gonna use an analogy):

PersonA wants to hire someone to cut the grass for $10 an hour. PersonB takes the job(accepting the wage -- if he thinks it's inadequit then he shouldn't take that job), then that new employee, PersonB, demands to be paid more, wants the owner to buy new equipment, give him food, hire back the guy that cut the grass last week, or else he wouldn't work and/or will file a law suit against PersonA (the employer) if he doesn't comply with the worker's demands.

wow... i guess that's why they get such a low vote..

I guess you can come up with any bad idea and get a few thousand people to buy into it.