Slashdot Mirror

Just one more reason to join the Libertarian Party.
Libertarian Party

Check it! That's socialism for you... The government knows best!

STOP BUYING THINGS FOR PEOPLE, STOP TAXING PEOPLE, AND LET PEOPLE BUY THINGS FOR THEIR OWN DAMN SELVES!.

The states have NO reason to buy all this crap at prices much higher than citizens would pay. Despite popular opinion, people are smart enough to pay for things themselves.

France's economy is fucked right now because their openly socialist government pays for every damn thing. Canada's taxes are skyrocketing out of control for the same reason.

America doesn't openly admit its socialism, but that isn't preventing the BS from developing. We start more and more recurring-cost projects each year, the majority of which are pointless.

Read more.

[ note the small 'l'. ]

I completely agree with what you're saying, Motherfucking. Personal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and a "hands-off" stance on social issues are the tenets of modern American libertarianism.

You may want to look into the Libertarian Party. While there are a lot of kooky people involved in the LP, there are a good number of them who are a lot more reasistic, and are trying to convince the American public that endless cycles of tax and spend, and government's regulation of the bedroom are not in their best interest.

Personally, I usually vote LP if the candidate "gets it", as you say, but I'll gladly cross party lines if the candidate has libertarian leanings.

Take a look at the Cato Institute as well.

It's too bad he wouldn't back down on the Medical Marijuana deal. The LP actually labelled him as one of the 5 incumbents they were targeting for removal from congress. I'm sure there are other things which place him more as a right-libertarian, but on drug related issues he had no compassion.

It's too bad he wouldn't back down on the Medical Marijuana deal. The LP actually labelled him as one of the 5 incumbents they were targeting for removal from congress. I'm sure there are other things which place him more as a right-libertarian, but on drug related issues he had no compassion.

"Imagine, the idea of people sharing and working together! What an anathema to the Usonian way of life."

You need to spend some time down at the welfare office, watching guys who own three motorcycles and a big house with a pool beg for money, despite the fact that they're working under the table and not telling the government. I know a guy who wrote freelance articles for the local paper, worked at a jewelry store, AND collected government assistance. Why on earth would I support this system after seeing that? NO, the only fair way is to say that "what I work for, I keep; what you earn, you keep." I'm not supporting lazy ass bums who'll just end up raping somebody out of boredom with my hard-earned cash. VOTE LIBERTARIAN.

But yeah, communism is dead - the bodies just haven't stopped twitching yet.

Speak for yourself, there is hope

Oh, and I forgot to mention, they DO want to abolish the National Parks, or the US Forest Service

Note that everything you have in your post is pure speculation about what might happen if the Libertarian Party became the dominant party

Actually, what I said was not spaculation, just look at lp.org, The Libertarian Party is against Minimum Wage, Public transportation, public education, Student Financial Aid and Loans, State Universities/Public Colleges.

In fact, if you look at lp.org, you will see that they want to abolish this and Abolish that, privatize this and privatize that. Also, take a look Here

In other words, they actually DO believe in dog-eat-dog/Survival of the fittest.

The reason why I said libertarian is because when something like this come up "The Patriot Act II" then a few /.ers usually responds by saying "Vote Libertarian next election" At least I have links legitamate links to back up my claims, unlike a few /.ers.

So what I said was not being a troll or a flamebait, but just giving the cold, hard facts of the libertarian party.

Note that everything you have in your post is pure speculation about what might happen if the Libertarian Party became the dominant party

Actually, what I said was not spaculation, just look at lp.org, The Libertarian Party is against Minimum Wage, Public transportation, public education, Student Financial Aid and Loans, State Universities/Public Colleges.

In fact, if you look at lp.org, you will see that they want to abolish this and Abolish that, privatize this and privatize that. Also, take a look Here

In other words, they actually DO believe in dog-eat-dog/Survival of the fittest.

The reason why I said libertarian is because when something like this come up "The Patriot Act II" then a few /.ers usually responds by saying "Vote Libertarian next election" At least I have links legitamate links to back up my claims, unlike a few /.ers.

So what I said was not being a troll or a flamebait, but just giving the cold, hard facts of the libertarian party.

Note that everything you have in your post is pure speculation about what might happen if the Libertarian Party became the dominant party

Actually, what I said was not spaculation, just look at lp.org, The Libertarian Party is against Minimum Wage, Public transportation, public education, Student Financial Aid and Loans, State Universities/Public Colleges.

In fact, if you look at lp.org, you will see that they want to abolish this and Abolish that, privatize this and privatize that. Also, take a look Here

In other words, they actually DO believe in dog-eat-dog/Survival of the fittest.

The reason why I said libertarian is because when something like this come up "The Patriot Act II" then a few /.ers usually responds by saying "Vote Libertarian next election" At least I have links legitamate links to back up my claims, unlike a few /.ers.

So what I said was not being a troll or a flamebait, but just giving the cold, hard facts of the libertarian party.

There is a pretty strong consensus among many US citizens that the PATRIOT Act was a power grab by the government during a time when the populace was vulnerable.

People who are very concerned about the PATRIOT Act:
Libertarians
The Green Party
The EFF
The ACLU
EPIC

The only people who don't seem to be concerned about the PATRIOT Act are the Republicans and Democrats who voted it in and stand to gain the most from it. I hope this concerns you, especially if you are a US citizen.

Position on Drug prohibition from the libertarian party website.

Libertarians, like most Americans, demand to be safe at home and on the streets. Libertarians would like all Americans to be healthy and free of drug dependence. But drug laws don't help, they make things worse.

The professional politicians scramble to make names for themselves as tough anti-drug warriors, while the experts agree that the "war on drugs" has been lost, and could never be won. The tragic victims of that war are your personal liberty and its companion, responsibility. It's time to consider the re-legalization of drugs.

I didn't mean to say that the Republican party was the Communist party, but rather that the latter party could win by exploiting this.

Both leading parties in this country suck in very similar ways. The Libertarian Party doesn't suck.

the Liberatarian Party reported their concern with this before. all Americans should really take a look at the Libertarian Party. with our dwindling freedoms and government intrusion into our daily lives becoming more and more of a problem, we need an overhaul and the Libertarian Party seems like a must at this point. instant repeal of the Patriot Act is very important imho. also check gary nolan's website. get involved, it's not too early as some seem to think. change is good.

>I hate that phrase. First, lawyers don't create laws; Legislators/Congress(wo)men do (and judges interpret them)

Funnily enough, 39% of Congress are lawyers. I believe that this is lower than usual. Perhaps some of them have been disbarred because of all the fraud, assault, drug use, shoplifting and drunk driving that they like to indulge in.

Lawyers and Congress are two sides of the same tarnished coin.

Voting and giving money are great- but I wouldn't give the money to politicians. Try to find a politician who has the slightest clue what's going on with patents, copyright, etc. You mention Howard Dean, and perhaps he's "in the know." But to support him, I'd be supporting a host of other things I find abhorrent. And try to find me other candidates who are familiar with the issues around 1-click, the Micky Mouse Protection Act, Carnivore, Direct TV lawsuits, or DeCSS.

Give your money to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) if you want to support the right side of these kinds of issues. For other issues, you may may want to give money to CATO, the ACLU, the Friedman Foundation, or whatever nonprofit actively supports what you believe in. You can usually trust them to spend the money fighting fairly particular fights.

But almost any donation to a candidate is a donation in favor of pork-barrel spending. It doesn't matter if they're Democrats or Republicans. In addition to whatever issues a politician purports to support (and check their Voting Record to see if they even do what they say), they probably vote for massive pork-barrel spending. Almost every politician does. That's why the national debt is increasing at $1,200,000 a minute right now. (OK, the debt's increasing because taxing 30% of the GDP doesn't begin to cover the actual spending.

I also strongly agree with the other reply to this parent saying to tell other people. Although if some of these people somewhere along the line don't either vote or give money, it won't do much.

Stalin killed Millions of humans in the Ukraine in the artificial Famine and Terror campaign (some say Joe killed 30 million people during his reign).

As Danila said -- the situation in Russia is unlikely to get worse! He was also warning us about what could happen in our own country if we become too apathetic about our rights and the political process. A true gentleman.

We were getting bludgeoned with a clue-by-four about our rights and participating in the political process. And from a Russian, no less! Methinks we should listen.

Shamelss plug for my political views (mostly): http://www.lp.org

I personally can't stomach the ACLU.

I suggest that you consider either the Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org/) or Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/).

On the LP's web page there is also the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" which is basically a 10 question quiz which will help you know what political "area" you fall into.

On the LP's web page there is also the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" which is basically a 10 question quiz which will help you know what political "area" you fall into.

The problem with liberatarians (if you truly are one) is that you guys never place yourself on the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism in and of itself means nothing without the econopolitical left-right ideology.

That's bollocks. Libertarians don't play your left-right game; we see the world in terms of autonomy vs control, not one kind of control vs another. You apparently assume that there has to be control, and we can only change the type, and who holds the whip. That kind of zero-sum thinking is... so depressing. And unrealistic.

Take the little Libertarian quiz, see how you come out. I'm curious.

http://www.lp.org/quiz/

Yes, it's a short and simple quiz, so plase don't go on about how sort and simple it is.

...you are attempting to deny your countrymen the right to democratic process via the rule of law.

Protest isn't a disruption of the democratic process. When people are uninformed, they vote out of ignorance. This is assuming they bother to vote at all, most don't.

Protesting is one way of making your opinions heard. Is it effective? I don't know that it is, but you try getting your opinions on the news if your opinions aren't already status quo on the station in question.

And to all of you neomarxists spoiled by wealthy living, quit your bitching and HELP PEOPLE. Don't destroy public or corporate structures, feed people.

I can't speak for pfafrich, but I'm a libertarian, which isn't anything like marxism, communism, or "neomarxism" (not sure what you meant by that). Getting to my point, chaining yourself to a public building in protest is not a crime. Pfafrich was right when he said he was arrested for his beliefs. Or, nearly right anyway. He was arrested for expressing his beliefs in an extremely visible way.

you have to somehow convince everyone to make a change in their attitudes, behaviour and choices (1). [...] not ONE problem has been solved by student activists(2).

I put these two together because they are so obviously contradictory. How do you intend to change people's opinions without making them aware that there are opinions other than theirs? Let's pass a law then, shall we? "Everyone is required to have [x] opinion," Thus Sayeth Uncle Sam.

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't help anything.

Specifically in response to #2: It could be argued that the reason the Vietnam war ended when it did was because student activists gradually changed the opinions of enough people to make it politically necessary to end that war. By politically necessary, I mean, "If we don't put an end to this right now, people might not vote for us."

I should point out that I wasn't alive during the Vietnam War. If the previous paragraph was grossly inaccurate, I apologize.

Perhaps I'm going through a little too much trouble to respond to what seems to be an obvious troll.

Coleman is a Republican. Funny how the story conveniently left that fact out.

Disclaimer: I am not a Republican.

"The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom."

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves..."

However, the RIAA's strongarm, bullying tactics are pissing me off. I would not vote for any politician who supported that organization

I think that in the U.S. this would make you a libertarian.

All the more reason to be a Libertarian... ;)

Here are my views:

Please note that I do not fit in any of your boxes correctly. Please accept my apologies for that.

Anyway, according the the "world smallest political quiz" at Libertarian Party:

Personal Issues

Yes Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
No Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet.
Yes Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
Yes Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
Yes People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose.

Economic Issues

Yes Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies.
Yes People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
No Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
No End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
Yes All foreign aid should be privately funded.

At this quiz I have scored 12. Where 0 means 100% liberal and 40 means 100% conservative. That makes me between the two Clintons.

At Political Compass I got placed very colse to Ghandi and Dalai Lama, exact oppisite of g.w.bush.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.25 (left = -10, right = 10)
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62 (lib = -10, auth = 10)

These guys are supposed to be all about small government!

(D): Cut Defense!
(R): Cut Entitlement Programs!

The net result often is that they compromise and screw everyone by cutting neither, because that's the only way they can "bring home the bacon" to "the District" and help their chances of e-election. In effect, the entire Federal Budget becomes indirect welfare for incumbents.

HanzoSan, You need to think in terms of . . . . .

"It is not a matter of WHO is right or wrong it is a matter of WHAT is right or wrong that counts."

Quoting Hanzosan: You know damn well voting Libertarian means you are voting for Bush.

A: No. Voting libertarian means that your voting for a principle, meaning you are voting for WHAT is right.

I mentally like to kind of think of this as common sense, which seems to be lacking by many these days. If you are trying to make the argument that the libertarian vote doesn't count, then you should perhaps consider not showing up to vote at all, and then let us see who's vote counted more. Your absent (non vote) or our actual real vote.

The libertarian party is a real party, we have real votes, and real people in office, folks that care about this country and the constitution.
Now regarding the actual vote I cast, for Bush, Yeah, I did vote for Bush and I will explain why. Brown did not have a Vice President, this country needs to have both President, and Vice President, I didn't vote for Brown because it would have been wrong. I didn't vote for Gore because that would have be Waaaaaay Wrong.

Isn't it interesting how you do not see libertarians proposing all these bills on these draconian laws which seem to be totally lacking in common sense?

HanzoSan, You need to think in terms of . . . . .

"It is not a matter of WHO is right or wrong it is a matter of WHAT is right or wrong that counts."

Quoting Hanzosan: You know damn well voting Libertarian means you are voting for Bush.

A: No. Voting libertarian means that your voting for a principle, meaning you are voting for WHAT is right.

I mentally like to kind of think of this as common sense, which seems to be lacking by many these days. If you are trying to make the argument that the libertarian vote doesn't count, then you should perhaps consider not showing up to vote at all, and then let us see who's vote counted more. Your absent (non vote) or our actual real vote.

The libertarian party is a real party, we have real votes, and real people in office, folks that care about this country and the constitution.
Now regarding the actual vote I cast, for Bush, Yeah, I did vote for Bush and I will explain why. Brown did not have a Vice President, this country needs to have both President, and Vice President, I didn't vote for Brown because it would have been wrong. I didn't vote for Gore because that would have be Waaaaaay Wrong.

Isn't it interesting how you do not see libertarians proposing all these bills on these draconian laws which seem to be totally lacking in common sense?

What's so bbad about that? If you save tax money and pay for the toll road instead it wouldn't hurt you.

Plus we'd all be out of jobs, because the major corporations would move everything overseas due to the lack of gov't interference in business.

In a free market economy with floating exchange rates there isn't much benifit in moving everything overseas; besides right now there are no regulations that I'm aware of preventing businesses from moving everything overseas anyway.

Give me a party that believes in protecting the environment, promotes competition amongst businesses by not allowing them to buy each other up, stays out of my personal life, and puts the rights and liberties of citizens ahead of big business.

First of all the Libertarian Party has a plan to protect the environment, by eliminating sovereign immunity and allowing the privatization of land and beast. Businesses buying each other up is not a threat to competition. If they wont pay more than the cost of starting the business then nobody will sell a business. If they do pay more, then people will start creating businesses to get bought out for a quick profit, and will drain the monopoly of funds.

LP Press Release: Bill banning dinnertime telemarketing may be popular, but it's not needed (February 13, 2001)

Basically, libertarians don't want government interfering with our lives, even for the perceived benefit of getting rid of the annoyance of telemarketing calls. There are plenty of technological means for dealing with telemarketing calls that seem to work reliably well without needing to get the government involved.

You forgot to include the link in your post:

http://www.lp.org/

The Society for Pointless Debates Revolving Around Semantics and Nomenclature or SPDRASN

Sorry, that name is already taken, by the Libertarian Party. Of course, you must be 50+ to be a Spud Raisin; hence the attraction. Younger folk are more interested in spud raising, and teens of course are totally into spud racing. The best thing about spud racing is that the only thing stolen is the speed over the posted limit, and many have claimed that exceeding the speed limit is neither theft nor a copyright violation.

I think people have stopped thinking proactively on governmental topics. Everybody's so disillusioned and cynical that they've given up hope of improving it. I've got enough cynicism regarding government, but I still try to come up with effective ideas. :) I don't know how to go about actually implementing them though. Most of the support you find for ideas like this come from third parties, and it seems you can't get a third party into office without enacting some of these reforms first. Chicken, meet egg. :P

If only half of these cynical disillusioned citizens would actually vote (third party, any third party) on election day, we might see some massive reform in this country. Can you imagine what the response would be if several major races came back with a tally of ~33% Repugnican, ~33% Democrap, ~9% Libertarian, ~8% Green, ~8% Constitution, ~9% Reform, with a voter turnout ~78%? Especially since this would virtually guarantee that these minor parties actually won more than a mere handful of races? (Odds are that somewhere the number of these "'new' non-traditional" voters would overwhelm the Duopoly voters and carry some elections for a particularly effective 3rd-party candidate.) The political landscape and course of debate would be transformed overnight. The reaction would be far disproportionate to the number of seats actually won by minor parties. Just the fact that they had a significant showing would have huge impact.

And all it would take is some lazy disaffected people to get off their butts one November Tuesday. If you don't like the system, then buck the system! I'd almost say it doesn't matter which alternative party you vote for as long as it breaks the Duopoly's lock, but I still advocate making an informed decision. Investigate all the parties' platforms and vote for the one closest to your own beliefs, regardless of their showing in the polls. If you don't vote what you believe, you won't get what you want. I know it is difficult to stick to this when we have a plurality vote system, but unless we vote our principles now, the current corrupt system will continue to erode those principles further.

It's time to end the commie dream of the federal government funding everything, anyway. Some things require a massive huge collective country-wide effort, such as defense. But that list of things that require federal involvement is very small. It might seem like a good idea, at first, for the feds to be involved in things they don't need to, such as education, libraries, healthcare, roads, etc. That's because you see the huge federal budgets and you think, "damn, I'd love to have a piece of that." But the people in your state (or city) are the ones who use the libraries, roads, etc there. You're not getting something for nothing when this "free federal money" comes in; you paid for it with your income taxes. Why do you want this extra middleman, when you know that it will inevitably skim off some efficiency, and abuse it's power so that some senator who lives thousands of miles away from you, will have a say in how you live?

Stop voting people into federal offices (president, senate, house) who say they will do great things for you, because it's always a lie. Vote in the ones who say they will get the federal government out of your local community's concerns. That means you won't be getting those federal dollars, but you won't be giving them to the feds in the first place, either. Decide for yourselves, at your local level, how much to spend on what, and under what conditions. Then nobody will be able to use your own money as a weapon against you.

These kind of abuses will not go away as long as you keep voting for them.

www.lp.org

When was the last time a Congressman was heard to say "We can't do that -- it's not in the Constitution" ?

It's been a looong time. We just need to get some different people in office, that's all.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the government can seize property used to commit a crime, even if the owner was innocent of any wrongdoing.

The case involved a Michigan woman whose family car was confiscated when her husband used it for sex with a prostitute. The Court rejected her argument that as an "innocent owner" she was entitled to compensation for her half-interest in the automobile.

but Classic Plastic will be outlawed due to its effect on the environment. It will then be discovered that it can act as a halucinegen. America will declare war on plastics, and the libertarian party will be ignored for standing up for our right to buy and use plastics.

We do need a big third party, the "I got f'in ballz" party.

We've got one. Engineers often think in a way far more compatible with the Libs than with the Reps or Dems. And you can't beat a party whose mascot is the penguin! ;)

I didnt say ANYTHING about being trustworthy!
Lets be honest I know that Mossad could come up with legal documents proving you are my 3 year old daughter.
AND I know that the NSA could show my direct email correspondence to Lenin himself.
AND I, especially being in the security business, am paid to be paranoid ( which I would be even if I wasn't in the security field) after all just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really after you. What I am saying is there are 30 big ugly guys standing outside your home with the ability to come in. Some by breaking down your door, others breaking a window. Unless I am a cryptography expert ( I personally am good but am by no means an expert) and a security expert, and a linux expert who has gone through every line of code out there and written appropriate patches yourself you have to trust someone. Me, well I am going to trust the guy with the locksmith business card and teh truck and experience to back it up. After all he is an expert and if i didnt give him the keys he could still walk in. In the end it is not somuch a matter of trust as it is a matter of logic.

"I would be a libertarian but they believe in too much government"

Well, in actuallity, I am a consitutionalist

Why bother? By the time any such impeachment process would come to any fruition, you could already be filling out your ballot in November, 2004. Instead of circulating completely pointless petitions for impeachment, circulate the agenda of some other candidate for president.

As much of a generalization as this might be, (hell it might even be borderline bigotry) I really think the problem is that 50% of this country is in the south. I'm reluctant to be so simplistic in my judgement, but I only need talk to my relatives in Kentucky, or visit the barber shop here in North Carolina to see people just gushing about our beloved aristocrat. You should've heard the way they were wow'ed by him landing on an aircraft carrier, 'Oooh! I even heard he flew at the controls for half the trip!' 'Wow!'

To me it's like everyone is insane. No one sees him as putting PR above the reality of a bloody war, and no one seems to notice that every word that comes out of his mouth wreaks of insincerity. And it's not like I'm trying to play favorites, I hate democrats and republicans equally! They're all phonies! The real republicans are the Libertarians, and the real democrats are the Progressives. But Bush is the worst phony I've ever seen at the mic. You can find better acting in a low budget porno. Unfortunately, I think with voter apathy at an all time high (17% of the voting population was enough for Bush, or Gore, or whichever talking head supposedly got elected) he'll probably get re-elected. This time around he has the new neo-patriotic furvor backing him.

Any pro-P2P folks running for office?

You mean like these guys?

When the time comes where businesses can influence either directly or indirectly the functioning of our 'democratic state' there will be need of a revolution

How very, very true. I've said it before, but I'll say it again.. (With all due apologies to Queensryche)... I hear a "revolution calling..."

Or if not an out and out armed revolution (which won't even be possible if we keep sitting back and letting the govt. ass-rape the 2nd Amendment), at least some SERIOUS FUCKING REFORM OF THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT.

This kind of shit is why I Vote Libertarian. At least there is one political party dedicated to preserving the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

*stands on soapbox*

People, making the process of voting physically easier is not the solution to curing voter apathy. Politically apathetic citizens became that way because of one of two reasons:

1. they are genuinely not interested in politics, or they feel it does not affect them in any way
2. they feel there is no candidate worth voting for

In reality, these two reasons are caused by the same thing -- ignorance. Politics DOES affect you, and there ARE candidates worth voting for. Online voting may make the process easier, but it does nothing to cure the problems infecting the system itself.

Here is a quick checklist to see if you, or someone you know, is, in fact, Part of the Problem!!

1. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", you are part of the problem. You should find a candidate that you actually like, because they are out there (though, admittedly, they may not have a cute icon like an elephant or a donkey). At the very least, you should familiarize yourself with the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.

2. If you vote on a single, smoke-and-mirrors issue, you are part of the problem. E.g. soccer moms who vote Republican because they are "pro life" when Republicans have little interest in outlawing abortion. Its ok to feel strongly about a particular issue, but at least look into whether or not the people you are voting for will actually do something about it. More often than not, hot-button issues like abortion are simply split between the two major parties - Democrats are "pro choice" and Republicans are "pro life" - but abortion remains legal regardless of which is in office. Voting along these arbitrary, marketing-driven lines accomplishes nothing. Do not allow your vote to be "assumed" by a major party because you feel a certain way about an issue - make them show you something.

3. If you do not vote at all because you think there is no one worth voting for, then you are part of the problem. There are many different voices out there, and one is sure to align fairly closely with your own. Whenever possible, one should always vote for third parties because, if for no other reason, you can consider it a vote for more choices and an end to the lock of the two-party system (the first hurdle).

4. And lastly - register yourself as an independant! There is no reason for you to allow yourself to be assumed. They have to earn your vote - every time. The fact that people check themselves off as subscribing to a particular laundry list of stances on issues never ceases to amaze and disgust me. Why allow yourself to become part of some political marketing poll? The fact that certain candidates do not visit certain areas of the country because they have it "in the bag" should disgust you, too.

*steps down from soapbox*

As has been said, many times, many ways, each officeholding choice is a selection between (almost always) two people who are either virtually identical in position, with only very minor distinguishing features, or two people who are, at the best, dishonest opportunists who siezed a chance to run for office because it's better than having a real job.

I believe that to be true, ONLY if you limit yourself to voting for "major party" candidates... ie, republicrats or demopublicans.

On the other hand, since I vote predominantly Libertarian, I feel like I do usually have a meaningful choice that's not just "picking the lesser of two evils" or whatever.