Back at the beginning of Political threads around here, I said that I saw value in both major party candidates.

That has been all but obscurred by all of the BS in this election - all of the substance has vanished.

Now, I can't help thinking (as I have for years) that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.

The arguments are all about accusations and counter-accusations while anything important has been utterly ignored.

Sad and stupid.

Now, I can't help thinking that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.

+1

There really isn't anyone I would like to vote for in this election. Neither candidate or party presents a clear advantage over the other one. There isn't much of a "lesser of two evils" in this election anymore either.

join the 3rd party movement....?

my mother, funny, she saw her person fade from the primaries only to back the person she disliked the most (out of the last ~6-7 R's), she was disgusted then, and with the supposed McCain quote, "it's ok to vote for B.O." or something very close to it, has been disgusted again, but she'll prolly vote R anyway cause of Palin but more so of McCain's pro-life abortion stance.

right now the "2 parties", for president and most of congress, are not the answer , and maybe the farthest from it, before anarchy.

edit: changed sentence to make more sense.

Edited October 12, 200817 yr by loki

Yep...

They're the same.

It shouldn't be democrat verses republican. It should be politicians verses real people.

I would have to agree....my big question is: How much can either REALLY change?

wasn't it Geo. Washington's farewell address that warned us of the two party system but it was inevitable?

So far right now im throwing my vote in the toilet to bill burr or some odd ball with a cool last name just to see the 3rd parties get recognition.

Bill Burr the comedian is running for president?

Edited October 12, 200817 yr by YellowJacket894

Barr.

isn't Baldwin/Castle cooler sounding?

I don't remember who barr made his VP choice as.

lol I messed that up. hell I could write him in, it would be like the same thing.

Edited October 12, 200817 yr by capriceman

Yep...

They're the same.

It shouldn't be democrat verses republican. It should be politicians verses real people.

Yup.

We have the same thing up here in Canada, a bunch of politicians taking our money with any kind of tax they can think up only to do what they do best...... put money in their pockets while we the people pay for their ineptness.

Am I going to vote for the Douche or the Turd Sandwich? Hmmm ... I still can't decide.

A crazy idea from this crazy Portuguese/European (details can be found at www.notgoingtohappen.com): what about changing whatever needs to be changed in the US Constitution and/or Election Laws, so that the political system in the US becomes a true multi-party system?

A crazy idea from this crazy Portuguese/European (details can be found at www.notgoingtohappen.com): what about changing whatever needs to be changed in the US Constitution and/or Election Laws, so that the political system in the US becomes a true multi-party system?

Huh? There really isn't anything in the Constitution or election laws that precludes a multiple party system. We have other parties...just no one votes for them. Most likely because they get started by whackjobs and have a single agenda, without encompassing broad policy points.

Huh? There really isn't anything in the Constitution or election laws that precludes a multiple party system. We have other parties...just no one votes for them. Most likely because they get started by whackjobs and have a single agenda, without encompassing broad policy points.

And the Big Money contributors (corporations, wealthy individuals, PACs, etc) fund both the Big 2 parties. Given all the buzz about environmentalism, I'm surprised we haven't seen a viable Green party in the US, but it's probably the lack of Big Money contributions that have kept it small...

Edited October 12, 200817 yr by moltar

One guy claims to be an agent of change, yet gives us more of the same. The other guy claims to be a maverick, yet gives us more of the same.

ZL-1, the "powers that be" would never change the system to disadvantage themselves, that would sound way too fair. lol.

it used to be more fair when debates were held by the league of women voters...but that's not in my memory lifetime... before 88? now third parties have to be polling 15%+ to get into the debates, that will not happen for another election cycle most likely.

Edited October 13, 200817 yr by loki

Huh? There really isn't anything in the Constitution or election laws that precludes a multiple party system. We have other parties...just no one votes for them. Most likely because they get started by whackjobs and have a single agenda, without encompassing broad policy points.

Not in the Constitution, no.

But you are way off about the election laws!

Merely getting on the ballot has been effectively obstructed by the major parties for years - and yes, it is intentional.

They have much to fear from a strong third party.

The only real issue that is at stake here is the fate of the Supreme Court.

Under Obama it would likely see two of the oldest liberal judges retire and be replaced by younger liberal judges who will undoubtedly be "living document" types.

Under McCain likely no judges would retire, but in the unlikely event that one did retire they would be replaced by either moderate or conservative "constructionist" judges.

That issue alone is enough to make me vote... Well and the fact that Obama-Biden are completely anti-gun, but i know most of you don't give a rats ass about the 2nd Amendment.

and this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

Edited October 13, 200817 yr by Teh Ricer Civic!

I think the difference is that McCain is too old to run a country day to day, and more than that his running mate is completely inexperienced and has a relatively good shot of taking over at some point.

The only real issue that is at stake here is the fate of the Supreme Court.

Under Obama it would likely see two of the oldest liberal judges retire and be replaced by younger liberal judges who will undoubtedly be "living document" types.

Under McCain likely no judges would retire, but in the unlikely event that one did retire they would be replaced by either moderate or conservative "constructionist" judges.

That issue alone is enough to make me vote... Well and the fact that Obama-Biden are completely anti-gun, but i know most of you don't give a rats ass about the 2nd Amendment.

and this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

Interesting article.

and,

I think you'll find a fair number of second ammendment supporters around here - me included.

The only real issue that is at stake here is the fate of the Supreme Court.

Under Obama it would likely see two of the oldest liberal judges retire and be replaced by younger liberal judges who will undoubtedly be "living document" types.

Nothing wrong with that..it would balance out the court...there are too many conservative judges on it now..

Nothing wrong with that..it would balance out the court...there are too many conservative judges on it now..

judging shouldn't play any politcal part in things. the law is the law, if ti's too open ended then the courts should say that and such, not define the laws from the bench.

judging shouldn't play any politcal part in things. the law is the law, if ti's too open ended then the courts should say that and such, not define the laws from the bench.

except, that's their job....

except, that's their job....

Well, 2 problems, 1) it would not affect the composition at all, it would simply be replacing 2 liberal judges with 2 liberal judges.

And the problem is not conservatism or liberalism its how they interpret the document, constructionists (origionalists) interpret it in the way it would have in the 1700s if they were HERE today. "Living Document" types interpret it in light of "fairness" which is likely not really what the founding fathers had in mind.

Well, 2 problems, 1) it would not affect the composition at all, it would simply be replacing 2 liberal judges with 2 liberal judges.

And the problem is not conservatism or liberalism its how they interpret the document, constructionists (origionalists) interpret it in the way it would have in the 1700s if they were HERE today. "Living Document" types interpret it in light of "fairness" which is likely not really what the founding fathers had in mind.

The thing is, the reality context of today is not what it was in the 1700s...things that were relevant then aren't necessarily so today... times have changed, including the language, so the interpretation of the document has to evolve through time.

Edited October 13, 200817 yr by moltar

Well, 2 problems, 1) it would not affect the composition at all, it would simply be replacing 2 liberal judges with 2 liberal judges.

And the problem is not conservatism or liberalism its how they interpret the document, constructionists (origionalists) interpret it in the way it would have in the 1700s if they were HERE today. "Living Document" types interpret it in light of "fairness" which is likely not really what the founding fathers had in mind.

The needs of the citizens of this country have changed substantially since the 1790s.

Edit: I want to be clear that I'm not in favor of gun control... but the 2nd amendment was written when it took a minute to load a gun. Do you think the founding fathers really envisioned fully automatic rifles that could explode concrete?

The needs of the citizens of this country have changed substantially since the 1790s.

Edit: I want to be clear that I'm not in favor of gun control... but the 2nd amendment was written when it took a minute to load a gun. Do you think the founding fathers really envisioned fully automatic rifles that could explode concrete?

No, but the real question is how would they react to it?

They'd probably say "Holy $h!, thats crazy, why would anyone need one of those?"

The needs of the citizens of this country have changed substantially since the 1790s.

Edit: I want to be clear that I'm not in favor of gun control... but the 2nd amendment was written when it took a minute to load a gun. Do you think the founding fathers really envisioned fully automatic rifles that could explode concrete?

no, but would you want one if you were being attacked by a wild animal? i would, anything to defend yourself, and by wild animal i mean bear, boar, elephant, lion, man.

those attacks still happen, that's why the 2nd amendment should never be "killed"

Edited October 14, 200817 yr by loki

They'd probably say "Holy $h!, thats crazy, why would anyone need one of those?"

More likely they'd want to know where to get their own.

no, but would you want one if you were being attacked by a wild animal? i would, anything to defend yourself, and by wild animal i mean bear, boar, elephant, lion, man.

I don't see that happening to myself in suburbia. I have heard of mountain lion attacks in the parks and trail areas...some places I've been for hikes and bike rides in the Denver area have had mountain lion sightings.. I couldn't imagine carrying a gun when out riding, though.

Edited October 14, 200817 yr by moltar

More likely they'd want to know where to get their own.

haha, somehow i could envision Washington at a gun range throwing lead downrange with an M60.

haha, somehow i could envision Washington at a gun range throwing lead downrange with an M60.

With a grin on his face, no doubt.

Remember everyone, this country was young and vulnerable back then.

Alexander Hamilton probably would have lived longer with some more firepower.

I think you're all wrong. I think that those men in particular were much more in tune with the idea of moderation. In fact, I think a good many of them would be horrified at what that amendment was being used for today.

I think you're all wrong. I think that those men in particular were much more in tune with the idea of moderation. In fact, I think a good many of them would be horrified at what that amendment was being used for today.

maybe, maybe not. it's (your) an opinion.

maybe, maybe not. it's (your) an opinion.

True.

I believe Franklin said it best..... "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security"

Look at how much of our freedoms have been lost. Owning a gun is not a freedom..... there will always be someone else out there with a bigger, or more weapons than you.

True.

I believe Franklin said it best..... "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security"

Look at how much of our freedoms have been lost. Owning a gun is not a freedom..... there will always be someone else out there with a bigger, or more weapons than you.

yeah...they're either maniacs or collectors

True.

I believe Franklin said it best..... "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security"

Look at how much of our freedoms have been lost. Owning a gun is not a freedom..... there will always be someone else out there with a bigger, or more weapons than you.

Well im sorry, since you don't own the biggest or best car you should be banned from owning a car. same goes with houses, televisions, and your wine cellar.

That is why i am so adamant about constructionist judges, they are far less likely to strip your rights. It is about time we regained some rights... and i may be willing to concede on abortion if it means more freedoms overall.

yeah...they're either maniacs or collectors

And if you are real lucky you might find an avid collector who went through all the pain in the ass work to get an old fully automatic M16.

Owning a gun is not a freedom..... there will always be someone else out there with a bigger, or more weapons than you.

tisk tisk, its not the size of your weapon its how you USE it

in all fairness theres money to be made when it comes to killing look at hirum maxim... Maxim was reported to have said: "In 1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: 'Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility' ".

there reason so many died in the civil war was the fact that the generals were still employing napoleonic war techniques when the tools of war had far outpaced them. with the rifled barrels and the advent of the minet ball it was like sheep to the slaughter.

as far as fully automatic weapons are concerned i am almost 100% sure that there has never been a crime committed with one that was LEGALLY owned. owners of such weapons are noted and go through very strict procedures to aquires such items. knob creek kentucky is a great place to check them out under the propper circumstances. now as far as military guns go i saw a new sniper rifle with a range so far out you have to take the earths rotation into play. i dont care who you are. thats just cool when its within 6" accurate at 2300 yards.

tisk tisk, its not the size of your weapon its how you USE it

Pfft, thats nothing compared to an anti-matter bomb.

Heh i stumbled upon this http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/De...mp;pageId=3.2.1

Edited October 14, 200817 yr by Teh Ricer Civic!

I'll see your castle bravo and raise you an operation plumbbob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests

??

Plumbbomb was in the kiloton range. Castle Bravo was 48 megatons.... I still win!

But just for good measure....

Tzar Bomba:

Largest nuclear device ever exploded.

??

Plumbbomb was in the kiloton range. Castle Bravo was 48 megatons.... I still win!

But just for good measure....

Tzar Bomba:

Largest nuclear device ever exploded.

dang it i read the yields wrong hehehe. still i like crossroads the best

wheres the emoticon for nuclear hi jacked thread? hehe