Supreme court gone south.

[X-CalBR8]

If enough of us start voting for a 3rd party candidate, maybe not in this election, but in some future election, people may be able to overcome the warped mentality that you are "throwing away your vote" to vote for a 3rd party candidate. If we don't do something to break this mindset then we are doomed to whatever the Democrats and Republicans decide to force feed us for the rest of our lives.

Your "throwing away your vote" in this election may not make the difference, but if enough people do so out of disgust for the crooked system that we have now, it could change enough other people's minds that are just sitting on the fence when it comes to voting for a 3rd party candidate and someday it may not be seen as "throwing away your vote" to vote for who you truly believe would be the best candidate, no matter what political party they may represent.

Democracy is like capitalism, when there is a monopoly, we all suffer.

 

[BB]

Looking at history, I would say that how we cast our votes seems to have very little effect on the direction of our national parties.

In recent history, has the American Independent party (remember George Wallace--would have been Pres. Humphrey) had much of an effect on the Democrats?

Anderson received significant votes, but would not have changed the outcome (by popular vote anyway).

Perot received about 50% of the votes as Pres. Bush the First reelection. I don't see how Pres. Bush the Second is listening to us about sending, size of government, immigration reform (apparently, now folks are holding up on contributions to his reelection committee).

And Pres. Clinton can thank Perot again against Dole. Are the Republicans listening yet?

Last one, Nader affected the outcome of 2000 (but with an order of magnitude less of votes than Perot at his peak). The Democrats are apparently listening--but will this result in cutting off a good chunk of their more conservative and swing voters?

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Year Candidate and Party Electoral Vote Popular Vote
1968 Richard M. Nixon, Republican 301 31,785,480
Hubert H. Humphrey, Democrat 191 31,275,165
George C. Wallace, American Independent 46 9,906,473

1980 Ronald Reagan, Republican 489 43,267,489
James E. Carter, Jr., Democrat 49 34,964,583
John B. Anderson, Independent ... 5,588,014

1992 William J. Clinton, Democrat 370 44,908,233
George H. W. Bush, Republican 168 39,102,282
H. Ross Perot, Independent . . . 19,741,048

1996 William J. Clinton, Democrat 379 47,401,185
Robert Dole, Republican 159 39,197,469
H. Ross Perot, Reform . . . 8,085,294

2000 George W. Bush, Republican 271 50,456,169
Al Gore, Democrat 266 50,996,116
Ralph Nader, Green . . . 2,695,696 </pre><hr />

To effect change in the parties, you need to (in reverse order of effectiveness):
<ul type="square">[*]Make Friends with a Party Leader (see Clark)
[*]Become a Leader in the Party (see Clark)
[*]Join the party (see Clark)
[*]Donate lots of Money (see Soros, Unions, PACs, Corporations, etc.)
[*]Become an active member of the party
[*]Register to Vote party affiliation (to participate in Primaries).
[*]Create/Promote a Third Party (see Thurmond, Wallace, Anderson, Perot, Nader)
[*]Vote for the winning Party Candidate in General Elections
[*]Vote for the loosing Party Candidate in GE.
[*]Vote for the Third Party
[*]Do nothing [/list]

The last 4 choices are probably pretty similar in effecting change on the parties themselves.

If this goes farther, this probably should be a new thread--does not directly tie to the Sup. Court ruling of thread.

-Bill

 

[NoShadow]

We should thank God we live in a country where we can discuss these various viewpoints without reprisal. It is healthy to exchange ideas. And in America, the free exchange of opinions and perspectives has been one of the greatest liberties we have enjoyed. The very fact that this is taking place strengthens that liberty. Sasha, it seems I recall you said something about being irritated that you have to have some sort of weapon at ready when you walk out at night -- or anytime for that matter -- and you said it was because of the the hue and cry for 'civil liberties'. Well, I have always understood it is our responsibility to protect ourselves. It is NOT the reponsibility of the police to protect me as an individual...it is mine and mine alone. Anyway, it could be concluded that you somehow believe possessing civil liberties is to blame for your being in potential danger. If this is close to what you implied, I don't believe you seriously see it that way. All the laws in the world won't make you safe from 'potential' danger. Being aware of your surroundings and considering what you would do 'if ' this or that happened was and always will be necessary until evil is removed from the world. It would be wonderful if we never had to lock our homes, our cars, our lockers, etc. But we dream if we think we can do otherwise. Man is sinful...why we have and need law in the first place.

Bravo...I think what he is trying to have you look at is what can happen when liberty can be easily usurped by government when laws are enacted which can suspend the protections afforded by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. I don't sense he isn't enjoying his life any less than you say you are. What he is saying is that he would like to continue doing so and would like his children to enjoy breathing the air of freedom after he has gone. He is alert to the potential threat to this freedom ,especially by recent events, and is expressing this awareness. He is certainly far from alone in his concern. And I would agree with him that it appears you are either unaware of the potential abuse of power once it is given to the government over the individual or you don't think there ever would be such abuse and misuse of the power. The fact we all need to never forget is the nature of government is NOT benevolence but power. And power can corrupt and absolute power can corrupt absolutely.
You said something to the affect that those outside the life often see things as abuse or denial of civil liberties and they don't have a clue. To an extent this is very true.The average citizen has no idea what it is like on the street from the perspective of the lawman. And this will always be true. It goes with the job. And those matters are handled case by case day in and day out. What Bravo is referring to , I think, is the body politic seems willing to surrender their Constitutional safeguards in exchange for an imaginary security. A very bad trade indeed. As someone pointed out regarding the so-called 'War on Terror', when does it end? What are the battle lines? Who is the enemy? ..........Out of time. Will look in later. Thank you.

 

[Greta]

My eyes glazed over long ago. I don't even think I'm going to agree to disagree on any of this either... with the exception of Empath's last post... it really does bare repeating...

[ QUOTE ]
If ever Godwin's Law was applicable, this thread is the perfect example. The claims y'all are making are that basically, we've fallen into the same situation that Germany did with Hitler, and all you blind Americans that are busy in your pursuit of happiness are to blame. BS!

The "pursuit of happiness" isn't possible for everyone, simply because some will never pursue anything other than misery. Unfortunately, the old cliche "misery loves company" is more factual than not, and we'll never hear the end of their efforts to convince us that we too should be miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]

And with my 100% agreement with those statements, you'll have to excuse me while I go enjoy my life in happiness... that pool sure does look inviting this afternoon! Auf Weidersehen, y'all! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif

 

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
Tyler... where in there does it say that they can "database" you? Still not seeing that... sorry... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't say they *can't*. Once they stop you and ask their "voluntary" questions, there's no limits on what they do with the information they collect as far as I can see.

 

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Empath said:
If ever Godwin's Law was applicable, this thread is the perfect example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say this is far from a *perfect* example. There's a big difference between calling someone in the forum that you disagree with a Nazi (the original gist of Godwin's law) and pointing out specific policies that resemble Nazi policies, such as required "registration" of residents, which enabled them to quickly round up "undesirables". So yes, technically this thread does fit the letter of Godwin's law, but not the real spirit of it.

 

[Bravo25]

[ QUOTE ]

And with my 100% agreement with those statements, you'll have to excuse me while I go enjoy my life in happiness... that pool sure does look inviting this afternoon! Auf Weidersehen, y'all! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of us who see what is going on will continue working to make sure you can keep doing that then.

 

[McGizmo]

Sasha,

Anyone who might think that they can pull the wool over your eyes or deprive you of your rights, doesn't know you like we know you! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif However, in other parts of the country and under certain possible conditions, others rights might be infringed upon and they might not ne in a position to do anything about it. If the situation gets bad enough, *they* let the "big guns" out on the street until order is restored. That may be what it takes. We can only hope that those hefting the big guns do so with clear objectives and rules of engagement. When their job is done, we can also hope that they will get off the streets.

It seems that with the patriot act that doors are being opened for those granted new power to act with power. To assume that such power will be wielded without cause of concern of abuse may place more faith in the folks given the reins here than some of us are comfortable with. Do we no longer have people like McCarthy or J Edgar waiting for their chance? I hope so but from what I can tell, we have some people (certainly not all or even a majority) interested in running things in a manner that I hope they don't get a chance to do.

I don't consider myself afraid or paranoid. I also don't have blind faith in the benevolence of those who wish to rule.

I would like to board a plane with my carry on in tact and of no ones concern but my own; screened by X-ray for guns and explosives, sure no problem. I would rather take my chances that others would also board with reasonable care. If some A$$Hole steeped up with some type of sharp instrument, I would like to see the balance of passengers in a position to counter the threat armed with more than their plastic spoons! When I see a flight delayed due to a random search of a young couple with their three young children, obviously not close to any profile that I could imagine, I call BS! Possibly stopped for a search upon entering the airport and then later at some road block, it is possible that some people might get the impression that we are approaching more of a Police State than what we have had. Yeah, I know I'm confusing a bunch of different issues here but at some level, am I?

So in Arizona, you can carry a gun. In Berkeley, you can't. Heck I think my tritium vial equipped watch is breaking the letter of the "radioactive free zone" law!

Not knowing the ultimate intent of those who chose to change the rules for our own good, we may or may not have any real reason for concern. What does bother me is time and time again some issue comes up where what is obviously right, morally and ethically speaking, does not prevail due to law or its interpretation. Heaping more law upon law may or may not get us closer to justice prevailing. If we have enough laws at a given point in time, do law makers take a break?

Ok, ok, I know I am out of my league here and I'll head back to the flashlight mods...........

 

[vcal]

Gizmo, here's a little sage cynicism for 'ya: /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

In this life you get the law, in the next life you get justice. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

My own legal counsel has a sign in her office that simply states that you can get as much justice as you can afford. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[jayflash]

No government, liberal or conservative, will give its citizens any more justice than is demanded by a sufficient number of people. That is why we must remain constantly vigilant and voiceferous and vote. Our constant, constructive, criticism is the only foil against power and corruption. If we don't take advantage of our right to redress our government, then we have abdicated our responsibility of good citizenship.

We all love our countries and share the burden of seeking justice in this life.

 

[gadgetboy]

I'd say Godwin's law killed far fewer threads than Internet Warrior Syndrome has. Some people, rather than use a forum for the exchange of ideas, would rather take a swing at whoever comes near them. Straw arguments and accusations, combined with selective hearing and creative editing can make one wish for a good nazi reference to end it all.

I'm still waiting for somebody to sufficiently describe where the PC or consent comes from in these types of roadblocks. A flashing sign that says "OPTIONAL POLICE ROADBLOCK IN PROGRESS. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO STOP." might work.

For the cool kids: NOT ANTI-COP, NOT AFRAID.
See y'all at the checkpoint! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif

 

[BlindedByTheLite]

am i the only one who thinks Hitler orchestrated Surefire's recent business decisions?

i bet the original plans Hitler wrote out are collecting dust somewhere.. somewhere in the Surefire institute..

 

[NoShadow]

As soon as we have cleared the checkpoint, I wonder if Sasha would have us over for a swim in her pool? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

"Row ,row ,row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a dream"