I know exactly what I'm voting for: "none of the above" . . .

I'm not foolish enough to believe that a switcheroo between two fixed positions is going to magically make everything all better.

But then you are foolish to be so idealistic. No one is claiming magic.

Vote D and vote for checks and balance.

Vote D, vote for science.

No, I'm being pragmatic.
An action is observed to produce a known result.
Options: repeat ad nauseum... . . . ???
Yes, a nice symbolic counter-balance on those contrived wedge issues.
Tempting, Waxman and all that.
But I don't think politics is going to restore common sense to a willfully ignorant populace.

We do need to remove the politicians who support the willfully ignorant lobby.

I think our society suffers from a lack of critical thinking that won't be solved by a battle between R and D.

It won't be solved by electing the Natural Law (replace the Air Force with yogic flyers) Party either.

The pickings aren't good in the third parties.

Of course they aren't.
There's no market for third parties because all the voters are stuck in boogey-man mode.

I'm just saying that you can't rail against "the lesser of two evils" style thinking if you end up picking someone worse.

And you can't honestly expect to get a different outcome by continuing to pick the same two evils. Can you...???

Different isn't always better.

If "the same" is guaranteed to be shit, then "different" (as in: eroding the duopoly) is guaranteed to be better (as in: a long-term strategy).

First, no it isn't. There are no such guarantees. Second, the aspects in which D&R are "the same" are only a small part of the shit, the aspects in which they are different can have a massive impact, as the past six years have shown.

In Bush v Gore, I felt much as you do, and even voted Libertarian. But Bush proved that the issues that separate D from R are much more important than those that separate D&R from L.

Idealist. We can't collapse so you can rebuild your utopian society. I dont have time for that shit. We have to work with what we have. Now.

We're at war. The current leadership pre-emptively struck, mucked the plan, (if there really was one), have racked up huge debt. Soldiers are dying and our military is stretched. We've lost habeas corpus. The Internet is about to be put under corporate control. I think there is a lesser evil. Vote D.

Boogey-man mode exists because some politicians are flagrantly lying - sound byte logic and being politically correct. And they have troops to promote flagrant and obvious lies - extremist talk radio. Worse are the so many who endorse this lying. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson. Outright lying starting with lies about a silly spy plane conflict in China, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, imposing religion in laws and upon all people, and axis of evil. Early examples of making America confrontational. It is necessary if one is a drug addict and needs $100million incomes.

Topic of this thread is Rush Limbaugh - that he is a liar. To stop confrontation, we only need to talk honestly - used facts and not Limbaugh hype. A fact that can only be disputed by using confrontation: Rush Limbaugh is a liar. He even got rich by promoting lies to 'Brown Shirts'. From the Washington Post of 25 Oct 2006: Was Limbaugh being honest? You have his promise. Did he tell the truth? If Rush does not do as he said, then he has again created confrontation ... which is how wacko extremists came to power and want from their politicians. Lies and intentionally creating confrontation is how Hitler came to power.

You have his statement. Did he only lie again?

THIRD PARTY

Rush Limbaugh is interesting to listen to...
He definately represents the small portion of extremely stupid extreme right. Although he is widely listened too, even staunch Republicans. ie my father and ex-UIL teacher, don't agree with many of his opinions but they listen mainly for the shock factor and his anti-leftism commentary.

Wrong. I'm a realist. I am well versed in the conventional wisdom you advocate, I just take a longer view.

I haven't been following politics and these issues closely enough lately to comment with many facts or knowledge, but I do know one thing - I do know for sure that at least a couple of Rush Limbaugh's comments are taken out of context, which completely changes them implication or meaning of what is being said. So that is probably true of others, too.....like I said, i haven't followed close enough lately...

This is the engineer in me. If you 'know' and then summarize what you 'know', then why did you not post what you 'know'? Statements without underlying facts and numbers are how liars lie. You just posted using classic Rush Limbaugh logic. You did not provide the underlying examples - the reasons why - or why you 'know'. Therefore the entire post tells us nothing.

Rush 'knew' Michael J Fox was faking. Do I now assume you 'know' using the same logic – using same reasoning?

Brett's Honey - a post with your name on it logically does exactly what Rush Limbaugh does to promote lies. Did you do that to be intentionally facetious? Were you mocking Rush Limbaugh’s logic techniques? Or do you not understand why his diatribes were no different when he was doing drugs?

I don't mean to sound like I'm right and you guys are wrong. I hear what you are saying, I understand it, and I even agree with it. And then, over and above that, I have a higher priority that I can't ignore: I know that we can never become disentangled from the entrenched two-party system if we simply choose not to. And I know that there will never be a convenient time for it. Not now, not next time around, not ever.

Will it hurt, in the short-term? Oh God, yes. I cringe at the thought of us continuing in the direction we are headed. And, there are just as many people who feel great about the direction we are headed, and cringe at the thought of the other guys getting in charge. In a few years, the positions will reverse. Back and forth, back and forth, we teeter-totter down an inevitable pre-determined path, with no real alternative ever being considered. Because we vote from fear.

Sounds like you vote from fear too.

Rush is often sarcastic in his show. So yes many quotes are prolly out of context and therefore not the actually meaning of what he said.

Just vote Third Party!

Ironic, isn't it? I just subscribe to a fear I prefer over the pre-packaged variety. :tinfoil:

Just an example of one of those third parties we should vote for simply b/c they aren't mainstream.

So, since Democrats and Republicans are all we've seen in our short lifetimes, it will always be that way, and we should just accept it, because it always has been that way... . . . oh wait - I just scrolled a little further down the page you linked to, and, Gosh, it looks like there has been a whole bunch of political parties in the brief history of this country. Oh, forget it. I'll just vote against the boogey-man that scares me the most.

Good. :) I knew you would come around.

I vote for the individual not the party.

ROFL! That wasn't nice, you made milk shoot out of my nose. Of course we all vividly remember how the TERRIBLE LIBERALS used Terry Shciavo trotted out Terry Schiavo for their own twisted purposes. :greenface

You might be interested to know that a Republican used Micheal J.Fox during his 2004 campaign.

Do I see some egg on faces?

Why did I capitalize gosh?

You are idealistic because you dream that the unknown other must be better than the two party representatives we have. And for that you advocate scraping the system we have and starting over. Its fashionable to be disgruntled and to cynically dismiss. You see it on the idealistic far left and far right. What are the governmental horrors you currently endure? (Can you get a little global perspective on that?) How will this action of yours solve these? (and you better be positive they will because if you take that road, its took.) How will that ensure the quality and honesty and truth you seek? While this is good change is occuring in the legislative branch, how are the executive and judicial branches transformed? How long is this view?

It strikes me as similar to the bold neo-con dream, not dissimilar to Ledeen's call for cleansing destruction and nation building in Iraq. Idealistic. Or Pol pot (what axiom of online discussion calls up that reference? : ) ) reworking his society to erase the evils of Western Influence. He too, thought that the immediate discomfort would eventually, in the long run, birth a new superior civic organization. Not only idealistic, really really tragically so. But those who were inconvienced by this reorganization missed the big picture- it would all be better, some day.

I am not against your idea of direct democracy and multiple candidates. I am voting here for "instant runoff" for city offices, to enable a viable third candidate. I too, am taking the long view. But I am working it realistically, from within what we've got. What we've got is not ALL BAD and change can be worked strategically.

If I am lucky, I have about 30-40 more years before I die. I would like to live them as peacefully and justly as possible. The system is not perfect but the realistic approach is to work within it, shape it slowly, find ways to promote change that do not cut off your nose to spite your face.

The plan needs to be short-term/long-term. Even though the Ds anf rs are similar, the D's are less harmful, in the short run. We have to let the government know that we've had enough shit. When Bush got in with 50.00001% of the popular vote, he could have acknowledged that almost half the country would not be happy with his policies, and lead more as a centrist, as Clinton did. Instead, he fucked us in the ass. Perhaps a Democratic congress will have learned by this election (assuming Ds are voted in), and make the changes in the areas that have gotten the repubicans ousted. Hopefully.

In the meantime, we need to commit to third party options. My "what would a viable third party look like?" didn't get much attention, but it's the first step in developing a party platform that will draw enough voters to win an election.

Assuming the Dems gain control over both the House and Senate, they still don't have much power. Bush will veto anything he doesn't like unless it's so wildly popular with the public he has no choice but to sign it. That means the Dems will only have the power to pass legislation that the public enthusiastically supports. In reality, that may be one or two laws. Mostly all the Dems can do is be place holders, keeping the Republicans from having control of the legislative process. The Dems will act as a brake. That's about it.

No, I don't.

No, I don't.

A dysfunctional two-party system.

This action of mine is called "voting" - the action available to me.

Nothing is sure.
The current parties have no motivation to serve the population, as long as they know that one of them is guaranteed to be elected.

Longer than four years.

Unfortunately your thoughts don't influence elections, only your vote does that.

No amount of voting for two parties will produce a result of more than two parties.

I agree. I am not working outside of our system.

Fine. If your burning voting issue is quantitative- to establish more parties with the hope of increasing, eventually, "quality", --go for it.

I see more pressing issues. I can find democratic candidates that reflect more of my views and concerns than republicans, and will choose a different voting strategy.

Good. Do whatever you want. That's how it works.

And you will continue to rant and rave but not do a goddamn thing.
If you were more than hot air you'd be actually doing something beside throwing away your vote.

If you really wanted better choices you'd be involved with a party, third or otherwise. You'd be on committees, looking for viable candidates and putting your money where your mouth is. I'm betting you don't and never will.
You'll just rant and rave a bunch of hot air on the net, because you don't have the balls to actually get off your ass and work for something better.

You don't hold a candle to the solid citizens that actually support their party. Even if I think they are thinking wrong, I have more respect for them because the actually DO something besides make hot air about a bullshit utopia to avoid doing their share of the work it takes to get the utopia they want. :eyebrow:

Okay, that's cool.

I acknowledge the validity of your opinions; you have yours, I have mine. If you feel that being a dick about it is a good direction for you, then blast away! I accept this as something you feel justified in doing. And, at the end of the day, you still have your same opinions, and I still have mine.

And it's you being the dick, not me. :eyebrow:

Okay, I'm sure you feel that way. I accept that.

Can you cite any instances of this? Typically, caonservatives call liberals "bleeding hearts". Is that because Liberals are nasty? No, it's because conservatives think that they're too nice, giving dead-beats welfare, old folks social security and medicare, minorities the means to compete fairly, and what-not. Where do you get this idea of foul users and liars?

Noodle, this is out of character for you. Can you explain why you feel this way?

Wahhh. :right:
Republicans prefer to trot out and use a brain-dead woman who cannot say her "something".
Comparing Fox's scientific advocacy to Schiavo's privacy intrusion....hmmm... Quien es mas sleazo?!

Wasn't MJ Fox backing the republicans two years ago?:confused:

Arlen Specter.

Here. This thread isn't long enough. I like to watch it grow.
I think this is a great topic.

The Democrats are really getting dirty now. They mailed literature saying Curt Weldon (R PA 7th), was worse than a :worried: .....Dallas Cowboys Fan.

In this thread, 10 years ago, I argued that the only way to bring meaningful change to American politics was to vote third party, and over time, to send a message of non-participation to the two-party system. I believed, and still do believe that this was the only moral, logical choice we had at that time. Because partisan politics were leading us nowhere, and the fundamental issues of corruption within both parties was never going to be solved by swinging a superficially ideological pendulum back and forth.

Since then, partisan politics have become even more polarized, record numbers of Americans are identifying as independent, and both major parties have been hijacked from within, by anti-establishment candidates.

The narrative I see—and please correct me if you disagree—is that enough people have become disillusioned with the status quo, that we’ve reached a breaking point. The groundswell of “ƒuck the system” has finally crystallized. And those who have been “throwing our votes away” have finally added up to something that counts. Is that accurate? Are we really moving in a direction to change things? Or am I still a fool.

Still very premature. The people see the dysfunction, but don't see the extent of the entanglement of the two parties with the levers of political power.

I agree in theory, but to accomplish it takes educated, as well as concerned, voters participating from the ground up.

Americans don't want to be educated, at best maybe slightly concerned. They don't want to be involved, they don't want to be distracted from their full time dedication to avoiding reality and hating "the others".

Americans may get pissed off enough about some issue to actually carry a sign and mug for the TV cameras, if they can schedule it between Jr's baseball practice and Sis's dance lessons, but they want someone else to educate themselves on the complicated problem of running the government, and do it. They also want someone else to keep tabs on the ones doing it, 'cause ain't nobody got time for that.

When it comes time to vote, if they can squeeze it in without missing supper or missing Pat and Vanna time, they'll do it for bragging rights, feeling all proud to have contributed their two cents to truth, justice, and the American way. Knowing in their heart, the guy that contributed $10,000 has the real say in the outcome.

Like I said, I agree in theory, but I don't see it happening. :headshake

Not a fool, but foolish to think that any more than about 10% are willing to break away from the only thing they've ever known.

Rush goes past idiot a fair bit here.

I think he's right. I also think it's a good thing.

Indeed, except, speaking of "right", note the "left"s.

He is literally complaining that, with "the left" in charge, sex without consent is a crime.

No matter who's in charge sex without consent is RAPE.

I know that, but what he's saying is right correct. I'm saying that's the way it should be.

No argument here.

Except I wonder how many people who aren't in "the left" want to cede that moral position to "the left".

'cause boys will be boys, she was dressed like a slut, he was drunk/stoned, everyone knows she puts out, etc, etc, ad infinitum.:rolleyes:

Do we declare the GOP officially broken now or do we wait for election day?

The funny thing is the Democratic win is going to double down on a Party that represents banks and bombs not people so their realignment will be tortuously slow. Whatever the new right becomes it's going to happen faster than the new left, unless Hillary gets her nuclear exchange with Russia, then politics get local.