Third Party in '04

[Smapdey]

I, for one, am for it. I feel that both the republicans and the democrats are too similar and that, more than anything else, we can't trust either group. Both of which support special interests, both of which have supported administrations that have carried out acts of violence and aggression.

From where I stand, I get a lot of flak from liberals stating that I will keep Bush in office. My statement to them is two-fold: First, fuck you, you shouldn't be telling me how to vote and if you really cared about the democratic process in America, you would support a third party out of priniciple. Second, I don't see any difference between the people the democrats are running against Bush. I have slightly more respect for Kerry and Edwards and would be delighted if whoever did not win the nomination would take the green party stand point (which won't happen as they're the same fucking idiot party loyalists). Both are corrupt and will inevitiably continue the same cycle of violence that has manifested itself in the American political system.

Now, I do not support the Green Party anymore than I simply support a third party, the Greens have an equal chance at becoming corrupt, greedy and power drunk, but they do not have an equal chance of getting there. I, for one, will support them in the idea that they can finally run against the other two parties, but do not support them as a party (even though I agree with most of what they have to say).

I would like to also say that I do not support the Republican party. I think that it supports greedy people and every time it refers to the sanctity of anything, I cringe. Seperation of Church and State, you criminal fucks. That's one of the reasons that this nation was founded.

I also support a smaller population because at this point what we have social problems as a result of too many people living too close together.

Well, this will cause a fight and a half. Keep flames to a minimum as well as spam and hate speech.

[TRUCKIN]

Good thing the third party will steal votes from the left wing-democrat softies. This will help Bush win again just like last time. I really hope bush wins again. I don't think that the Demos, could have done the things bush has done. The way I see it, even though they havnt found WMDs, they had to take over the country that had a dictator with that kind a personality and history. War sucks ass, civilians and soldiers alike will die. Is it bush's fault, yes and no.

thats my fity cent.

[future man]

Might as well not vote. Anywho, I'm giving Bush my vote.

[RADiator]

All though I won’t get into this discussion due to the lack of information but I do want to ask you guys (especially those of you who live in USA). What do you generally think about Bush? Looking back on all the previous world events (good as well as bad) and conflicts, do you guys think that Bush is "the man for the job", or do you think otherwise?

[Downfall]

while he has many faults he is still curently lesser of the two evils(at least in my opinion)

[Hitman]

As sad as it seems i'm not voting, reason being is that nothing is correct and everything is twisted in a sick way... plus, the only person I wanted to see in the White House dropped out, that was General Wesley Clark.. one day possibably votes will be fairly done, until then i'm staying neutral.

[TopSecretBoy]

In response to RAD:

Truthfully, I don't know a whole lot about democrats and republicans and all of that. (I'm 16) But as far as Bush goes, yeah, I love him. I don't think that anyone else does besides me really. lol. If you ask me, we NEEDED to go into Iraq. Sure, we'll get some oil. And no, we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. But we did take out a dictator that is personally responsible for millions of deaths (If you include the kurds). I wanted to go for Bin Laden more than Saddam though. That's the only thing I don't like. I believe we created 6 teams for fighting against world leaders and bush took all of them from Bin Laden and put them on Saddam. I want Bin Laden, not Saddam. And if he was tied up in a chair in front of me, I had a gun, yeah, I would blow his fucking head off.

[Smapdey]

I disagree, I think Iraq was a mistake.

Look at it this way, we're the ones that are getting handed the bill for the generation before us' mistakes. That chaps my ass a little bit.

Let's not forget the patriot act and how that well THAT protects our freedoms.

[TRUCKIN]

smap, dont only think about the bill that our next generation will have to pay, you might want to think about how if saddam stayed in power, and did manage to get a nuke (he might give it to alqaeda or something) and sneak it into one of our allied countries and blow the fuck out of some innocent civilians or what not. This is where Bush is catching an ass load of flak. critics are all over him for lying to the country about wmds to go to war. We really don't know what the future will bring. If they do find some wmd's, its gonna make a lot of those people critisizing bush angry.

[Chimera[NL]]

Ok, I'm gonna stay the hell away from this thread cause if not it's gonna get real ugly between future, truckin, hitman and me.

[Digital Pimp]

Bin Laden could be caught in a short time. Here's a story from the Telegraph in Australia. Just read the article if this is true then great.

http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html

[Smapdey]

I think what Bush did technically counts as a war crime. An agressive act of invasion against an otherwise peaceful nation? I don't remember Iraq ever attacking US soil.

And as for the terrorists, well, we still haven't caught Osama yet either and it's been a year in a half.

[TopSecretBoy]

An agressive act of invasion against an otherwise peaceful nation?

Exactly how was Iraq a 'peaceful nation'? :)

*Edit*

Since I believe this might be long and drawn out, I'm going to state right now that after the first flame from anybody to anybody else, I'm leaving this conversation. And I pledge to not flame myself.

[Smapdey]

I guess that was a stretch, I meant that it had not made any acts of aggression towards any other countries recently (As it turns out, all of the acts of aggression that have been mentioned happened about ten years ago). Iraq did not pose a threat, and if you killed someone because you thought they might kill you, only to find that they have no weapons, you can bet that, "They might have gotten one in the future" will not keep your ass out of jail.

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by TopSecretBoy
Since I believe this might be long and drawn out, I'm going to state right now that after the first flame from anybody to anybody else, I'm leaving this conversation. And I pledge to not flame myself.

Amen, at the first flame, this thread is closed and the flamer is under consideration for banning.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey
I think what Bush did technically counts as a war crime. An agressive act of invasion against an otherwise peaceful nation? I don't remember Iraq ever attacking US soil.

And as for the terrorists, well, we still haven't caught Osama yet either and it's been a year in a half.

Saddam and his sons were having many many people tortured and killed everyday. I really hate the war, but because it helps out those people over there, I'm still supportive of it overall. If it wasn't for that I would DEFINATELY not support the war.

And as for Osama, he better be captured, and soon. Seems almost like Bush started this Iraq war hoping people would forget about Osama.

[future man]

Originally posted by Smapdey
"They might have gotten one in the future" will not keep your ass out of jail.

Not too often that I ever see the jailer going to jail.

[Trustkill]

Does it matter who wins? You're only voting for a puppet....you might as well vote for whoever has the nicer shoes.

[RADiator]

Ehmm, looks like I've asked a wrong question at the wrong time and in the wrong thread. O_o Oh well…

[Trustkill]

you wanna know about Bush? He is like most other world leaders. He was born into the family and that little circle of politics. We are made to think we have "the choice", but in the end we are just choosing one dick over the other.

Bush....just another self serving individule who reached his career goal of becoming president. All else (the people) means nothing to them (gov't) and their little club.

The world trade center was a tragedy, the pentagon was a misfire. I love my country, I hate my government.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by RADiator
All though I won’t get into this discussion due to the lack of information but I do want to ask you guys (especially those of you who live in USA). What do you generally think about Bush? Looking back on all the previous world events (good as well as bad) and conflicts, do you guys think that Bush is "the man for the job", or do you think otherwise?

i think bush is pretty good overall. he has saved my family about 2000 in tax cuts. He seems to be a bit of a warmonger, and he spends alot of money (he's not all that conservative). But I'm not the most informed person... i dont watch alot of news stuff. I think Bush will be better than a democrat though anyday.

[DanTheMan]

Ok, here is my two cents. Overall, Bush has done a O.K. job. He didn't do the best job in the world, but he didn't do the worst either. We did not have any sex scandals or anything like that in his admininstration, which is good. However, I see three major areas that Bush needs improvement in:

1. For the love of God W, grow some freaking balls! Everytime I see him, he is always trying to take the middle ground and make both parties happy! Stick to your party line for Christ's sake. Even when he is wrong about something, he doesn't have the balls to admit it. (Ex: "We have intelligence that Iraq has WMD's." Later " Iraq might have WMD's". "We are not sure if Iraq has WMD's.)

2. The war in Iraq. Look, Saddam was a fucking dirtbag, and he deserved what he got coming too him. However, I DO NOT like the way that President Bush sold the war in Iraq to the American people. When he stresses that the war is about the prevention of WMD and terrorist attacks, instead of liberating a corrupt and evil regime, I don't like that. If your going to send our troops out to give their lives for their country, then by God give a damn good reason and stick to it.

Also, I do not know why we attacked Iraq first. I mean come on, North Korea is a WAY bigger threat to us than Iraq. North Korea has the worst human rights violations in the world (worse then China) and is ACTIVELY building nuclear weapons as a act of belligerence towards us. I mean, wtf Bush?

3. Spending. I know there is a war going on, and Bush has cut our taxes, (thankfully) but Jesus Christ man Bush is spending more money then a Democrat! If you don't believe me go look up the goverment fiscal spending for the last 4 years. Someone needs to show President Bush how to balance a freaking budget.

Anyways, that's my opinion. I do support our President, I just think he has done some things wrong.

[Freakonaleash89]

I TOTALLY agree with what you said. Finally someone on these boards thats got some sense.

[Freakonaleash89]

sorry doublepost, messed that one up

[DanTheMan]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I TOTALLY agree with what you said. Finally someone on these boards thats got some sense.

I don't know if I should be happy or scared.

[TopSecretBoy]

I guess that was a stretch, I meant that it had not made any acts of aggression towards any other countries recently (As it turns out, all of the acts of aggression that have been mentioned happened about ten years ago). Iraq did not pose a threat, and if you killed someone because you thought they might kill you, only to find that they have no weapons, you can bet that, "They might have gotten one in the future" will not keep your ass out of jail.

I agree and do not at the same time. I totally agree on your point about "if you killed someone because you thought they might kill you", yeah I totally agree there man. That's wrong. But almost all of the Iraqi people did not like Saddam. Even though he killed the Kurds a decade ago, he still tried to dominate his people until we moved it.

Also, I do not know why we attacked Iraq first. I mean come on, North Korea is a WAY bigger threat to us than Iraq. North Korea has the worst human rights violations in the world (worst that China) and is ACTIVELY building nuclear weapons as a act of belligerence towards us. I mean, wtf Bush?

N. Korea = Big big threat

Iraq = Small thread with much oil :D


But for the most part, I agree.

As I originally stated though, I don't want Saddam, I want that trash Bin fucker.

[Smapdey]

Trust was right, Bush is in it for the money, and I agree with his point about the puppet, no matter what democrat or republican you vote for, you're voting for the same shit, different name.

[DanTheMan]

Smap, all politics is crap today. There is no "for the people" in the political world today, only self serving and greedy senators. That is what saddens me, that our own political government doesn't give a flying fuck about what the people think.

[Yian]

Here is a little thought of mine on today's American politics:

The first thing we need to realize is that America is not a democratic nation. the common military phrase "We preserve democracy, not to practice it here" does not do justice because America does not pracrtice true democracy. America has been a republic, and there is a big difference; Democracy means a nation with its politics being directed directly or indirectly by its people, and a republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

You must now think "emmm.... dont we all indirectly control the officials we elected into the office by our voting system?" No, we do not. Americans vote for the candidates the political parties chosen from the electoral college. Americans could only choose from a filtered range of candidates. American people cannot put the man they have desired into the government, only those who is within the group have the chance.

Remember, American students pledge to "the Republic" at school. Because it is indeed a republic. It was probably meant to be one from the very beginning.

Now, instead of saying "we need a third political party", we shoudld ask ourselves: is there such a need for a third party in a repblic based nation?

A large country, like America, usually has three thing in common. The first thing would be the geological factor, including infrastructures, resources, and usable lands. Second would be the abstract concept such as a centralized power figures, like a government or an authority that either controls economy or military, and the third would be its population and the direction it heads to, such as culture and stuff. These factors are especially true at the time of civil wars. America was lucky to have only one civil war so far, but for those who came from a nation with countless civil war in their history should know that those who control more of these factors ultimately won, and conflicts could last fro decades if these advantages were equally divided.

Now look at America, and look at these political parties' history. When Confederational government was abolished and a Constitutional government was formed during after the Constitutional convention assembles in Philadelphia in 1787 and the constitution was endorsed by the Congress in the same year, we had two major political parties, one would be the Federalist (today's Republican), and the other would be Republican (which is today's Democrat.) Federalists have been mainly composed of rich and powerful bloodlines such as Hamilton, and the tradition lives on to today's Republican. This is the party that controls the abstract aspect of the three: the centralized power. The Democratic party, on the other hand, controls the vital resources, including human resources, which was exploited to the core during the 1800's through the City Machines in all major US industrialized cities, such as New York, Atlanta, and most of all, Chicago.

It is not that America does not have any other party other than the big two, but there isn;t one that's big enough to make it "the big three." Because these tow parties, IMO, knnow very well what their roles are, and they try as much as possible to avoid such cenario from taking place. America do not, and will not, have a third political party that shares equal status with the current two, because the US government, which is literally controlled by the two, do not want that happen.

People might argue "Oh dont be silly, our government wont do such evil. They wont go against their own people like that." It is actually more absurd if they don't. Imagine a group of rich people who has given the society absolutely no solid contribution but owns 60% of the nation's wealth, and now imgine the way they would look at how it works. If they are smart enough, they would know thaty the only thing that keep them in such a high status was the politics they control. Of course they won't let it go. Things such as Civil Rights Movement does a lot of damage to the current system, because the more people are educated, the less chance they can get away from things.

Things? What things? Things such as waging war against Iraq, such as giving rich-asses tax cuts. Such as Patriot Act, blah blah blah...

Look at what happened to those who try to bring a change. Popular leaders who has too much support from American people, which is the important third factor, never end up at the good place. Lincoln, Kennedy, MLK Jr, they all had the potential to gain that third factor to fight against the two that have been taken, but before they could do that, bang!

And lesser education budget is now taking the full effect on American people. Everyone in the world knows that US has a piss-poor public education system, and when people talk about "great educatio" they mean places in Ivy League, where many ambitious men and women were blocked out for the lack of money; a class-selection from such an early stage. And the avarage American citizen's view on politics are extremly simple and stupified. Some people actually quote from Bush: "Less Tax-cut for the rich means more tax for you" "Invasion to Iraq is justified." When the leader of a nation attempts to use such simple sentences to justify his doing, he is not explaining his actions, but to raise a public conciousness, and that only happens in a nation with ill-educated mass, such as the old Russia (no offense RAD, I said the "old" Russia) And old communist China. The politicians think of the Americans are easily misled, and ironically, that's not too far from the truth.

And now we hope there is a third party to screw up their plan of domination? Hell no. Not going to happen. It is too late: these guys already have all the power, with their men in places, taking off opinions one after another. The citizens are lazy. They will not realize what's going on, and they are too lazy to find out. Even if they see strong evidence that our future will be completely under some few people's control, they will not accept that. Who doesn't want to believe that the place they live is perfect? Who doesn't want to feel secure? And when they realized that the opinions that had kept them safe are all gone, it is too late. Way too late.

But that's not where America is heading, not a place that's fair and secure. Soon, the corporations will own the entire fucking land, and everyone will become minimum wage slaves. Soon laws will be very strict, you will hear cops busting into your neighborhood's door everyday. Soon, American people will look at their authority not with ridiculed eyes, but with fear and absolute obedience. Soon, this place will become a stage for the power struggles between the two, and the people will be doing the bidding.

I am not making a prophecy here; I'm only reciting the history of all great nations. These great nations rise and fall for the ignorance of the mass and the greed of the few, and it was never avoidable that a revolution need to take place to end the suffering, and only to fall into the history again. America is being dwelled by exact same human, with ignorance, and with greed. And if you though that people suddenly become all good and just and stuff simply because it ia America, you are mistaken.

[coppernaut]

Originally posted by Trustkill6six6
The world trade center was a tragedy, the pentagon was a misfire. I love my country, I hate my government.

Can I get an Amen?

[Hitman]

N. Korea = Big big threat

That's all that matters right now.

[future man]

Yian, take your meds.

[Rhenna]

While I don't personally think that the American political landscape is as bleak as Yian portrayed it, I would agree that the probability of a third party mounting a successful campaign for the American presidency is something I don't believe will happen in my lifetime. This is not strictly due to any influence applied by the current two parties, it's as much to do with the fact that most 3rd-party platforms are too far off the mainstream to garner much more than ideological support, and that mostly from younger people who don't have much clout at that point in their lives. (And who, I might add, have often been exposed to some political mind-games at the colleges they're attending/have attended.)

People don't want to "waste" their vote on a party, and candidates, that can't win. I, for example, share some common interests with the Libertarian Party; but it's unlikely I would vote for them in a presidential election. The symbolism of being part of group of voters that represents, say, 2% of the total votes cast, doesn't provide any sort of moral victory or solace to me.

With regard to George Bush: about 24~48 hours after the attack on 9/11, he said something to the effect that the war against terror "was now the centerpiece of his administration", or words very, very close to that. And, looking back, I really don't think he was simply spouting rhetoric. He, and by extension, the Executive branch of the government, has been pretty much on a war footing, since. I think the president feels we are at war, and the way I see it, he's right.

I don't believe for a moment that we aren't applying a tremendous amount of resources trying to locate Bin Laden. I also don't believe that if he was killed or captured tomorrow, it would make much, if any, difference as to our safety, or to the safety of a great many nations around this World. We would, in essence, still remain at war. Bin Laden isn't the prize, or the final objective. I think this president understands that.

As to Iraq; the original Gulf conflict was fought and terminated under U.N. guidelines. The goal at the time was to oust Iraq from Kuwait, not to invade Iraq. That conflict ended with the understanding that Iraq was to comply with certain mandates. They chose not to do so. On these grounds alone, Iraq risked military action. My feeling is that if the U.N. was worth three cents worth of spit, they would have enforced their own directives with regard to these violations. But they aren't, and so they didn't. Some things never change.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush announced the so-called "Axis of Evil", namely Iraq, Iran and North Korea. His critics thought that was amusing. We have since learned that both Iran and North Korea both have a rather robust nuclear program. This doesn't amuse me. I believe that in the absence of any show of intestinal fortitude on the part of the U.N., and the plausible scenario that Iraq was likely a "devil's workshop", so-to-speak, this particular president, I believe, felt compelled to act. I don't believe this was, or will be, about oil. Has a drop of Iraqi oil reached the U.S., yet? (I'm asking...)

WMD? Time will tell. My man, Hans Blix, U.N.-appointed Chief Weapons Inspector, and hardly a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, himself said that while they didn't find this or that, they also couldn't find tons of other material that they knew that Iraq once possessed, nor could Iraq account for what had become of it. If Iraq did destroy their contraband, without having the sense to document it, much less the showmanship to invite distinguished members of the World community to witness this destruction, then those in charge of that particular operation had the I.Q. of a doorknob. The jury is still out on this issue, as far as I'm concerned.

And on to the Patriot Act. I recall this passing with near-unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans. We had been attacked, there was the possibility of another attack, and, yes, people were frightened. But, the follow-on attacks never happened, and people began to feel the Act was flawed. Does the Act go too far? A lot of people are quick to tell me it does. OK, fine. When it "sunsets" in a year or so, let's re-write those portions of the Act that people find disturbing. I'm not aware of any pattern of misuse or abuse of the Patriot Act thus far, but I'm not a student of such things. Maybe, just a part of the reason we haven't been attacked again might be attributed to the PA? Who can say? I somehow feel the American Federal government has a little more important things to do with it's time, in this current climate, than to "open a file" on even 1% of the population. I also have this silly, naive belief that not everyone who works for the Feds is an evil person. Go figure.

Is North Korea a bigger threat than Iraq? Since they can lob conventional artillery rounds into downtown Seoul from their side of the border, yeah, I'd say so. But, I would argue that they are a bigger threat to South Korea, Russia, China and Japan. There's the matter of plutonium in this scenario; you know, that messy, toxic stuff with a half-life longer than Man has walked the Earth. I think this administration has been prudent thus far in insisting that the afore-mentioned nations must be part of any settlement, in down-playing any possibility of military action, (although I'd bet the house there are plans), and in quietly completing the alpha-phase of the Anti-Ballistic Missle system deployment. I think all along that system was meant as insurance against that loop-job at the controls in Pyongyang. Looks like it might be money well-spent, afterall.

Ok, I've gone on long enough, undoubtedly too long for most of you. Somebody else can jump in here, now, and have at it. And, I need to make myself another drink.

[Trustkill]

wow, I think we have a brief overview for the "made for TV" movie right there. Bernie Mac will play Bush.

[Chimera[NL]]

O god there are so many points I want to react to..


NO! Must keep myself away.

[future man]

Originally posted by Chimera[NL]
O god there are so many points I want to react to..


NO! Must keep myself away.

Best way to do that is stay the hell out of the thread, I think that's what I'm going to do. My brain started to collapse on itself after reading Yian's little tyrade.

[WhoGivesARatsAss]

Fuck Politics.. I just hate them, never want to get in them, never want to think about people who are in politics.. i aint got time for this shit and i dont give a shit.. that is one of the reasons why i dont read newspapers.. except for some classified section or whats in vogue.. thats about it..

[xenophage]

Originally posted by WhoGivesARatsAss
Fuck Politics.. I just hate them, never want to get in them, never want to think about people who are in politics.. i aint got time for this shit and i dont give a shit.. that is one of the reasons why i dont read newspapers.. except for some classified section or whats in vogue.. thats about it..

Well said. Politics is booooooooring!!

[sideshowbob]

Here's some good advice. Phone the queen, humbly apologize about what you've done to the English language and beg to be taken back as a colony.

If you're Canadian, don't bother. Neither the English nor the French really like you. And neither do we.

[Dying_Corpse]

in todays politic... you don't vote for who has the best ideas... more like the one who has the less bad ideas

[Downfall]

too true

[Yian]

Originally posted by future man
Best way to do that is stay the hell out of the thread, I think that's what I'm going to do. My brain started to collapse on itself after reading Yian's little tyrade.

I can't have an opinion...!? :( (What is tyrade??)

[TRUCKIN]

Originally posted by Yian
I can't have an opinion...!? :( (What is tyrade??) god damn, people are eager to start shit. futures statement was in reaction to Chimera's post. as for tyrade i think he ment tirade.

ti·rade
n.
A angry or violent speech usually of a censored or denunciatory nature.... i think

[Yian]

ok.