Slashdot Mirror

I'm not saying it's you personally, but there are a lot of people of that generation who are all for cutting government services for things they either received their benefit for or keep the services for things they will get benefit for, but cut it for everyone else after.

It's not all of us militating for this - only a select subset. Figure out what to do with those folks and you wouldn't have the problems you talk about. God knows the rest of us have tried...

I believe the original (perhaps not the first, but the most media-friendly) quote from Maes warned that the bike-sharing program was "converting Denver into a United Nations community." Now, depending on who you talk to, this may not even be such a bad thing; but the most entertaining part is how huge he blows the conspiracy theory, claiming that "this is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms." This leaves Colorado conservatives with a difficult choice: Dan Maes, or ex-Republican Tom Tancredo, who is running for the American Constitution Party and believes that we should repeal the Voting Rights Act. Jim Crow mk II, anyone?

He's the same as Charles Baldwin of the Alaska Independence party. Check his ballot status here:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/ba_stats.php

Well, damn. If only there were another option, a third option...

There are three pseudo-viable third options; parties that are on the ballot in enough states that should they win them all, they win the election.

Bob Barr

Cynthis McKinney

Chuck Baldwin

I plan on voting for Barr. Sure, he'll lose, but so will one of the two major party candidates. Why do the media insist that voting for a loser is a wasted vote? Could it be that they are owned by corporations, who bribe both candidates to get legislation (like the Bono Act and the PATRIOT act) passed with 100% or nearly so of the vote?

While the CP and LP have some similarities, they've got radically different core beliefs. The Constitution Party wants to restore the US government to its Biblical roots - it's much more obvious if you read their candidate's literature and not just the party's. The Libertarian Party is aggressively secular, believing in personal freedom and non-initiation of force, and thinks the government should stay out of religion.

I'm religious, and Libertarian, and while there are LPers whose anti-religious positions annoy me, and while the party appears to have been taken over by right-wing lizards recently, it's far far better than supporting a political party that believes in giving government power to enforce religion, and I'm skeptical about the CP's support for free markets and freedom of travel.

But I agree with you on Nixon - GWBush has been the worst president since Roosevelt and probably Lincoln. On the other hand, if you propped up Nixon again, it'd probably be Cheney moving Nixon's mouth and waving his arms the way he did with Bush.

We've got 6 or 7 parties. We've got the:

Republican party:
http://www.gop.com/

Democratic party:
http://www.democrats.org/

Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/

Green party:
http://www.gp.org/index.php

Socialist party:
http://www.sp-usa.org/

Constitution party:
http://constitutionparty.com/

If you look at the platforms and positions of these parties you'll find a lot of diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, only the most popular positions of the first two parties listed will ever be likely to see the light of day. If only there were some way to change that...

Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.

Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party, you should review the Libertarian Platform.

So vote the democrats and republicans who allow this out. http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Michael Peroutka. http://www.constitutionparty.com/ No spinelessness there.

I have finally gotten so fed up with the whole thing and am now going to vote for the Constitution Party whenever possible and after that I will probably vote Libertarian Party and lastly on my list will be those Republicans that still believe in limited government because the vast majority of them no longer care about this.

I am a supporter of the Libertarian party and even more so of the Constitution Party. I believe in limited government....There is coming a time when control oriented governments and cartels will be a thing of the past.

From the Constitution Party Platform:

"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources."

In other words, the government will command you not to engage in trade that they disapprove of. They will command you as to what you are allowed to put into your own body.

"The Constitution Party finds that a cause of this national state of disgrace is the deterioration of personal character among government leaders, exacerbated by the lack of public outcry against immoral conduct by public office holders."

In other words, only people whose character meets their arbitrary standards are worthy of honor and respect. The government will command you as to that which is considered "moral".

"We stand against so-called 'sexual orientation' and 'hate crime' statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression."

In other words, the government will command you as to what "appropriate" sexual behavior is and they will support those who wish to abuse those who fall outside of government standards.

"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country."

In other words, the government will command you to not gamble.

"We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand."

In other words, the government will command that Christianity receive special blessing from the government.

The Constitution party is not a party that loves indivudal liberty. It is a Christian party that seeks to impose Christian ethics on everyone through the force of government. It seeks to create the "control-oriented" government that you claim will be a "thing of the past".

You should check out the Constitution Party. He're a link to their platform document

I went through the Navy and received eduaction in electronics. When I went back to civilian life, I found that employers wanted a college degree. I went to college to get the degree. I only got credit in phys. ed and communications simply because the courses were designed a bit differently. After about 3 years and several thousands of dollars, I got my degree. I work for about a year in the electronic field before my job was shipped to China. Most electronics engineering jobs are now moved to overseas. This is happening to all kinds of professions. Why should people spend tens of thousand of dollars in order get the right paperwork for a career only to see that effort wasted when the next round of outsourcing comes about? I am seeing the same thing that happened to the electronics industry happen to the computer industry. I am just glad that I do not have to pay back a student loan. If the American government wants to increase graduation rates, then it would do something about the flood of slave-made goods and services crossing our borders. In fact, something will give due to the high number of dollars that America bleeds each year. In America, a worker cannot support a house and pay living expenses on a dollar a day. How do we compete with slave labor except by becoming slaves ourselves. This is where America is headed no thanks to the U.S. government's refusal to do its job. http://www.fija.org/ Take back the power usurped by corrupt judges. http://www.lp.org/ Take back our freedoms that have been stolen by the goverment. http://www.constitutionparty.com/ Time to go back to a limited government where people are free.

Interesting link. Here's another group that's trying to restore government according to the Constitution. Maybe the two groups should join forces...?

Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, for starters.

This is a cute suggestion, but not very practical. I agree that both political parties are corrupt beyond repair and that democracy needs more than 2 dominant political parties, but what should we do? Vote for some candidates who have barely spent the energy formulating a coherent policy? Let's see... we have the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, plus a cadre of smaller ones. I certainly am not going to vote for third party candidates merely because they are a third party candidate. I consider myself more knowledgeable about the current state of American politics, and I am at a loss of suggestions. I would love to find a political party that actually represents my political views, rather than finding the best fit among the big two. Does anyone have any suggestions about what to do? I mean I could go into politics, but I am quite sure I am not suited for such a job.

If the republican party is in such dire straits that it needs to split, why did they make major gains in every corner of politics in the last election? ...uh...you may not understand the US electoral system.

Since each person has only one vote, and it goes to only one party, similar parties weaken each other. Extreme parties also tend to lose votes. The system tends towards two parties becoming increasingly centrist (each fighting for moderate votes from the other side, since they already have their own votes).

The problem is that, at some point, the two parties become so similar (and some will claim that the Democrats and the Republicans are already there; I disagree) that the extreme voters on the far end become so frusterated that they split the closest party and form a more extreme one.

There *is* already a paleoconservative party. It's called the Consitution Party. It is, however, not a party that would be likely to appeal to libertarians, since while libertarians and paleoconservatives are both fiscally conservative, libertarians are socially liberal and paleoconservatives are socially conservative. The Consitution Party is *quite* socially conservative.

We have more than to parties in the U.S. as well.

We've got the Greens.

We've got the Libertarians.

We've go the Socialists.

We've got the Communists. (Who seem to have abandoned the hammer for a gear, but they're sticking to the sickle.)

We've got the Constitution Party.

Now, there is some collusion between the two entrenched parties and the media to create a de facto two-party system. Furthermore, plurality voting creates the environment for a two-party system.

Some are willing to fight it.

-Peter

I don't need or desire this kind of "protection." I need protection from my governemnt because I want to live in freedom. Why should we put up with more intrusions into our lives when the government will not even take the steps in securing our borders. What is wrong with building refugee camps to keep those who do not have American citizenship but might pose a danger? Tell them to go to the camps or back to their country.

What good is it it strip search old American women at airports and repress us with rfid tags and so-called foolproof drivers licences when our borders are overrun with illegals? I have seen personally numerous times American people get secondary searches at airpot checkpoints while those of obvious Middle Eastern descent go right through. Enough with the propaganda about safety for Americans when the people who should be watched are free to roam without a second glance.

Also, the influx of slave-made goods is making us vulnerable to terrorism (ever hear of sabotage). Fix our borders, and put reasonable tariffs on foreign made goods, and we will be safe. Train the citizenry on what to look for, have massive civil defence and first aid courses for the common people. Keep an eye on Middle Eastern travelers. I look like I'm Middle Eastern (I am not, though), and I wouldn't mind the extra checks.

I for one will give out information anywhere I can on how to disable rfid chips. A magnifying glass can be used for other purposes than frying ants! By defacto rule, we already have lost a lot of our Constitutional rights. Hey Bush, don't just allow the big Cartels to do what they want, we still like freedom too!

People, it is time for not only a new President but also a renewed governemnt, we can do it. We need another "Boston Tea Party". Our political parties have abandoned us. They make merchandice out of all of us. We desparately need a change, and it will not happen as long as the two political cartels remain in power. Take a look at the alternatives:

http://www.lp.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Until we make a real change in American it will only get worse.

No, I'd rather have them try to add copy protection to every A/D converter, simply because any attempt to do so would result in catastrophically embarassing failure.

Don't be too sure of that. Unfortunately, we live in Orwellian times. Even some of my fellow social conservatives are none too happy about the way things have been going.

Nothing will change until we get out of a two party system mentality. Nothing. I don't understand why people don't see that it's just too fucking easy for a powerful group of people to buy BOTH parties, give the general population the bone every four years, and say "just be glad you have the right to vote!" When was the last presidential election where we actually had someone we really wanted to elect? 1992 :-/? 1980 :-)? 1960?

If the Internet is supposed to be this massive force of change, why can't an internet based "popular" party nominate someone through the Internet, and then everyone can vote for that person to do an end-around this fucked up two party system? You know, I can just see all the fat-assed geeks say "well, just think of the fraud from overseas voters, and blah blah blah." Well, instead of just sitting there on your big fat asses and criticize, why don't you use your supposed massive intellect and THINK of a way to do a national based internet nomination of a candidate... Our only other alternative is for everyone to choose another party such as this or this.

I also think it's time for all the Democrat and Republican Koolaid drinkers to wake up from their coma and realize these two choices are actually more alike than different. They are in agreement with military issues, immigration, and other misc. topics. So what does that leave, abortion? Great, that's leaves a whole lot for me to pick from...

Until then, don't be surprised for another round of pick the worst of the two in 2008...

I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.

Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!

Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.

Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.

The PATRIOT act is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.

And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.

Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.

Those are some of my reasons.

Things I disagree with Bush on:

1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities.
2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.

In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.

Here is a link to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.

Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:

1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats, defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft.

2. Why the hell does he try to pret

So here's how it boils down: If you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of large corporations, vote for Bush; if you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of Hollywood corporations, vote for Kerry. It's that simple.

1. Democrats are for *more* government control.

2. Conservatives (and less so todays Republicans) are for *less* government control.

Hence, in order for the Democrats to 'control', they utiilize [increased] laws, taxes, regulations, etc. to a far greater extent. That most certainly would include the subject here. Democrats always use their power to *decrease* your freedoms, in trade for (presumably) doing more for you. But it is they you decide what they do for you, if anything. It is *not* you that decide that in any way.

Therefore, whatever you *think* you might be getting on this subject, you would lose more elsewhere. And lose even this thing later on.

If it were not for the Terrorism battle, I'd be voting this way. But since *nothing* else matters if you lose the war, I must vote for Bush.

we should do them we would not be in this mess. The Constitution says we vote not for the president but for people who we want to vote for the president, each district gets 3 votes. They are to be wise people that meet in December to discuss the issues and then they vote. I say the Constitution party has it right when they say it here I still might not know who I am voting for this year (Peroutka or Bush) but I am Damn sure that Nov 3rd I will be sending in a change of party form, I do really like the Constitution party

Neither party

I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.

There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:

Mike Badnarik - Libertarian

David Cobb - Green

Ralph Nader - Independent

Mike Peroutka - Constitution

In addition, Roger Calero, the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.

Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:

(from ballot-access.org):

Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.

Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.

Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


More details can be found at ballot-access.org

And a list of political parties in the United States is available as well.

seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.

The Libertarian Party is.

Hi. I was one of a handful of people that voted for Howard Phillips in 2000. Up until the debates I was planning to vote for Michael Peroutka, although I am to this days registered as a Republican.

In a great many respects, I feel about the Republicans the way Ronald Reagan felt about the Democrats-- I didn't leave them, they left me! Although I was thrilled with the reforms that were made under the Contract With America, the past few years have been disappointing from a domestic agenda viewpoint. When I discovered the Constitution Party in 2000, I found its back-to-basics view of Federal government to be refreshing and exciting.

Anyway, here come the Democrats, 2004. They say Bush "lied" about Iraq, ignoring coroborating evidence from the United Kingdom, Russia and Israel. They say Bush is planning a "January Surprise" draft, which is utter nonsense. They clamor that more people will die because the ill-concieved "assualt weapons ban" expired. They have such venom for Bush personally that I am shocked.

I just do not undersand the bile and vented spleen at this man. Do I think all his policies are great? No. I'm not a fan of the PATRIOT Act. I'm not a big fan of the Department of Homeland Security (isn't that the job of the DoD?). I'm not a big fan of extra layers of govenment in general. But-- and here's the difference-- I do not think that Bush is the Devil himself [although, these Democrats might actually want an authentic Hellspawn for Commander In Chief]. I think Bush is a man of conviction and moral courage, upright, and respectable qualities. He does not sway back and forth with the whim of public opinion. He's overcome personal weakness and adversity to rise to Governor and then President.

Mike-- I hope you understand that although I am a fan of the Constitution Party and agree with most of the goals it strives for, I cannot stand idly by and let a man like George Bush be unjustly villified. I must, for conscious' sake, cast my ballot in favor of George Bush. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I must stand with the honest and upright.

1. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

See their site Live Free Or Die, lfod.com.

If you feel strongly about mass immigration, mass outsourcing, and the total loss of USA's manufacturing and know-how (look at Detroit to see what happens... a once safe and beautiful city is now a delapidated warzone), then don't waste your vote on the free-traders. Cast a vote for the Constitution. Every vote they get will make a difference.

Also start reading VDARE.COM.

Tell everyone you know!

Slashdot had an article about the third-party debate at Cornell University. unfortunately, it was not broadcast.

I am not a big fan of their platform, but the Constitution Party has posted a page with a link to a download of the debate. (warning: the movie is a 67.4MB download).

I just got done watching it. It is a good debate, and a good chance to learn about some of the third-parties.

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.

jesus yes

their inclusive platform in their own words (from parent's link)

The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, anti-homosexual rights, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, anti-unchecked immigration, pro-second amendment, and against the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws, in favor of a strong national defense and opposed to unconstitutional interventionism.

Yes, but aside from the fact that the Constitution Party *does* advocate not changing the Consitution, their entire remaining platform appears to me to be stupid, short-sighted, and offensive. They dislike foreigners, free trade, and homosexuals (I must admit, when a party's platform says that a party is "anti-homosexual", images of the KKK and Nazi party start floating by). They have ties to anti-female equality ideas.

The closest organization in the US to the Consitution Party is the KKK.

Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist

> # Abortion is Murder(tm)

That's a big part of the Constitution Party platform, yes. Probably too big. I certainly agree with them on that, but America isn't ready to elect someone as rabidly anti-abortion as they are, so they're pretty much screwing themselves over.

They're also big on eliminating the rampant Constitution violations that the big parties continue to commit without thinking.

They also want to get America out of most foreign "problems" such as Iraq. They believe that America should be a "friend of liberty everywhere, defender only of her own." Makes sense to me.

Personally, I'd love to vote for Peroutka (their candidate this year) -- he matches my values much more closely than Bush does. But realities of the two party system will force me to vote Bush. :(

Party Platform

Party Platform

Why just the Libertarian party? Why not other third parties too. Personally I couldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans in good conscience. But I couldn't vote for the Libertarians either. Check out all the parties that you can. Don't just latch onto the first one that's "Not Republicrat". That would be as bad as being in the "Not Bush" party.

There's David Cobb the Green Party candidate, Michael Peroutka the Constitution Party candidate, Ralph Nader the Reform Party candidate (no, I'm not kidding), and as mentioned, Michael Badnarik the Libertarian Party candidate.

Those are just the four parties I've heard the most mention of. If you don't like any of them, keep looking. If you're really interested in them, there are even Socialist and Nazi parties.

If you want a quick intro to the Green and Libertarian parties, search the videos on C-Span for the Cobb/Badnarik debate. It's very informative and gives you in a nutshell what the policies of the two parties are, and helps to highlight the problems of having just two major parties.

Given my stance of conservatism (member of the constitution party, Semiretired security analyst and network engineer turned seminary student I see this whole debate and need for the law (or need of defence from the law depending on ones outlook) as completely pointless. What it really boils down to is personal responsibility and responsibility to protect those under your care. Our system of laws and outlook of the same is incredibly backwards. If you do not want your children involved with porn, then raise them properly, including taking an actual interest in who they are and what they want, say and do... novel concept these days I know. Don't care or want your children involved then either leave them open to it or show it to them. We should be active not reactive.

Note I personally know that porn can be very damaging to adults, and more so to children and minors, and even having a law on the books doesn't abrogate personal responsibility.

Lets work to change lives now laws.

oh well off to a meeting

o get off it. i as a "right winger" support these changes.

i pisses me off to "listen" to you "left wingewrs" bitch and moan about everything being from the "evil" "right wingers".

the evil "left wingers" are just as guilty. hell as stated many times before MR bill CLINTON signed the stupid DMCA.

not a "R", but a constitutionalist

ac due to login hadycap

Which is why we'd be a lot better off with the Constitutional Party.

You're joking, right?[0][1][2][3][4]

[0] The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image.
[1] Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.
[2] We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals
[3] The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.
[4] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

All that and I'm barely into the 'E's on their alphabetical list of issues. I could go on but my copy/paste fingers are cramping up.

And you call the Libertarian party over-the-top?

Which is why we'd be a lot better off with the Constitutional Party.

You're joking, right?[0][1][2][3][4]

[0] The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image.
[1] Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.
[2] We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals
[3] The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.
[4] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

All that and I'm barely into the 'E's on their alphabetical list of issues. I could go on but my copy/paste fingers are cramping up.

And you call the Libertarian party over-the-top?

Which is why we'd be a lot better off with the Constitutional Party.

You're joking, right?[0][1][2][3][4]

[0] The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image.
[1] Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.
[2] We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals
[3] The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.
[4] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

All that and I'm barely into the 'E's on their alphabetical list of issues. I could go on but my copy/paste fingers are cramping up.

And you call the Libertarian party over-the-top?

Which is why we'd be a lot better off with the Constitutional Party.

You're joking, right?[0][1][2][3][4]

[0] The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image.
[1] Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.
[2] We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals
[3] The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.
[4] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

All that and I'm barely into the 'E's on their alphabetical list of issues. I could go on but my copy/paste fingers are cramping up.

And you call the Libertarian party over-the-top?

Which is why we'd be a lot better off with the Constitutional Party.

You're joking, right?[0][1][2][3][4]

[0] The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image.
[1] Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.
[2] We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals
[3] The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty.
[4] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

All that and I'm barely into the 'E's on their alphabetical list of issues. I could go on but my copy/paste fingers are cramping up.

And you call the Libertarian party over-the-top?

Which is why we'd be a lot better off with the Constitutional Party. I think it combines the best of the Libertarian (before they went off their rocker during the last decade) with an unwavering dedication to the Constitution.

Compare the Constitution Party platform
Good

with the Libertarian
A little over the top

For example, what are we supposed to make of this:
"We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals."

Or this:
"We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:"

Then going on to rule out any control whatsoever of obscenity.

Mind you, either party has more intelligence in their little finger than all the Demicans and Republocrats put together.

Actually, when prominent Libertarian candidates speak, they reveal FAR more simple minded and objectionable thoughts than anything in platform.

I believe your post does not accurately reflect the state of the Libertarian Party in the US. The US Libertarian party leans more towards Jeffersonian principles than the libertarianism that you describe (which sounds more like anarchy to me). Meanwhile, the us Constitution Party is probably where the religious right belongs. They want to follow the US Constitution based on its roots in Biblical Law.

So vote constitution party the next time around

We have a real world with real problems to deal with, and these people would rather play a game and pretend in order to avoid it? Isn't this like drugs?
One the one hand we have evil, money-stealing authoritarian Democrats, on the other evil coportaist fascist Republicans. Neither party respects the constitution. Neither party will do what is right (defined by me as both constitutional and expediant). So, how about instead of worrying about dream land, we worry about what's actually outside beating down on our doors? Don't vote for Kerry or Bush. Don't vote for Nader. Vote for real candidates from parties that are true to the cause of freedom:
The Constitution Party
Libertarian Party
Vote first, revolt second. However, do not ever allow yourself to lose the right to either. We'll be needing them rarther soon.

Try these guys.

I voted in the last election, and I live in Brevard County, Florida. I voted for Howard Phillips, the candidate that best matches my values.

As years go by I become increasingly disappointed with the lack of non-rehtorical difference between the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans talk a good game, but their implemented policies show their true colors: they're not for limited government any more than the Democrats. They'll drive over the cliff at a safe 55 miles per hour instead of the Dem's 100, but they're going over the cliff just as sure.

Some of my letters to Federal officials were obviously NOT congruent with the Republican platform.