It IS unfair competition because Monticello is run as a corporation just like every other city in the United States. Don't believe me?
Well here is their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Just like the Annual Financial Report that public corporations must give their stockholders. The city of Monticello has $37.8 Million in cash assets alone! That means they are probably funding that $25 million bond with the taxpayers own money, at interest of course. Talk about sheering the sheep!
Now you know why the Soviet Union became a democracy. Their's more money in it!
Simply google CAFR and any city/state/county/school district to see the money they keep off the budgets.
And the neocons say unregulated capitalism isn't destroying our democracy. Eisenhower, how we miss thee...
What you don't realize that every city in the United States is ran like a corporation!
Every city/county/state/school district must publish a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), just like every corporation must publish and Annual Financial Report and send it to their stockholders.
Here is Monticello, MN CAFR. They have $37.8 Million in cash assets alone. Simply google CAFR and any government institution to see how much money they're hiding from you (its in the open but kept separate from their annual budget).
town doesn't have money to keep fighting legal battles.
Not True. According to their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) they have $37.8 Million in Cash Investments alone. That should get them some decent representation.
Google any your city plus CAFR and see how much money your city/county/school district/state is hiding from you.
Co-Sponsors: and 7 Co-Sponsors Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN] Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD] Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX] Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA] Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA] Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH] Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
I can't find who in the committee voted for it or against it. It passed committee 14 - 4.
Except when your friends with unlocked profiles post pictures with you tagged in them.
There are privacy settings that allow you to block others from seeing pictures you are tagged in from your profile. You can also block people from seeing your friends list and wall.
Why are there so many people in this thread worried about what other people are going to think about this? So many reactions were so similar it seems to be a Pavlovian response.
It is really sad that people who consider themselves to be smarter than others would immediately resort to the grade-school tactic of making fun of others because they are different than you in an attempt to make yourself feel accepted by the group.
The key to the difference in their foreign policies is the "(eventually)": For Obama, it's very clear that "eventually" means "within 16 months of taking office", whereas with McCain it appears that "eventually" means "as long as it takes for us to get what we want" (unclear what we're trying to get at this point). Obama's goal in Iraq is to get the troops out, McCain's goal in Iraq is to stay as long as necessary. That's a significant difference.
You are letting Obama mislead you with laywer speak. I'll translate Obama's official page for you.
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
Translation: He'll remove some troops 4-6k troops per month. The 50,000+ left will not be called "combat troops." They'll be in the permanent bases or the embassy. Don't forget the 100k+ private contractors.
Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.
Translation: The permanent bases are already being built by Bush. Why build more?
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats;
Translation: Our embassy in Iraq is the biggest embassy anywhere else in the world. It is larger than the Vatican.
if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
Translation: Any Iraqi who doesn't like its oil being stolen, or hates being occupied by a country from half way around the world will be called al Qaeda and summarily be killed.
Earlier this year radio talk show host Michael Reagan called for the murder of Mark Dice live on air. Mark Dice uploaded a 3 minute clip of the death threat to youtube. Reagan's lawyers filed a DMCA claim on the clip, youtube took down Mark Dice's entire channel which had a lot of original content and over a million views. Dice tried to counter claim but youtube did NOT reinstate his channel. Dice had to make a new channel and upload his content back.
The FBI or police would not charge Reagan for his death threats and Reagan is still on the air.
Meanwhile Obama was working with the NATO countries to see what he could do to get more of a NATO presence in Afghanistan and less of our troops there. Sounds to me like Obama wants to get out of Iraq and reduce the number of our troops in Afghanistan - not move from one to the other as you stated. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/obama.trip/index.html)
And to be quite frank (my apologies to those named Frank), had we stayed out of Iraq and focused on the issue at hand in Afghanistan we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
I had never heard about Obama's stance towards Iran - do you have a source I can look at to see what he envisions there? The same goes for Georgia.
Buried in this article you'll find that "The current fighting began four days ago (August 6) when Georgian forces launched a surprise attack to regain control of South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since the end of a civil war in 1992."
'Iran a major threat; I would never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect homeland, US interests, Democratic presidential candidate tells FOX's 'The Oâ(TM)Reilly Factor'
Afghanistan: Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if we didn't fly out hundreds of Taliban on C-130's into Pakistan.
I'm sick of W's policies and can't wait to get him out of office... McCain looks like more of the same... I'd love to see Obama in office... And so far it really doesn't look like McCain is going to provide much of a challenge...
I fail to see the difference in McCain's and Obama's foreign policy.
Both want to take troops out (eventually) of Iraq to put them in Afghanistan. Both support the giant permanent bases being built in Iraq, which guarentee 50k+ troops even after any "pullout," plus the probably 100k+ contractors.
Both are agressive towards Iran, leaving nothing off the table (including a nuclear first strike). Iran has proven multiple times that they don't have a weapons program and they can legally enrich uranium for legal purposes. They've only been proven to enrich uranium to around 3.7% (you need 90% for weapons grade material).
Both want to give over a billion dollars to Georgia (as does Cheney), which is going to do nothing but provoke Russia even more. Georgia was the aggressor against S. Ossetia. Saakashvili is a NATO puppet who is extremely dangerous (and loves to eat ties).
Putting a new face onto the same terrible foreign policy decisions doesn't change anything.
the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been spending millions and possibly billions on face recognizing cameras for cities around the nation.
It wouldn't be too difficult for the DHS to take the information from google and incorporate it in their own databases.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
What this bill does is set up a commission to decide what speech is terrorism and what isn't. During hearings for this bill they showed examples of this supposed homegrown terrorism. In between different Al-Qaeda websites, they showed Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Even if you don't agree with them, I doubt anyone would believe that asking questions makes you a homegrown terrorist. This bill was passed through the house 404-6 and has yet to be debated in the Senate.
The editors note that is now attached to the Register article that you link to really does not help to support your position. Incidentally I remember having read earlier that year that the warming trend will be put on hold this year because of a severe La Nina effect - apparently the National Geographic guys didn't get the memo.
The Register article DID help my position, however not as dramatically as I would have hoped:)
The Ice extent graph showed 10% more ice than last year, whereas the map showed 30% more pixels than last year. The two sets of data appeared to be contradictory, but they were not. Still, the 10% increase of ice from last year instead of their being almost no ice is a big difference.
Especially since it wasn't just national geographic reporting this, it was almost everyone!
Just a simple google search for "north pole ice free" will give you 1000's of articles. Notice how every one of these articles has very little variation. Not even fox news challenged the claim.
What the hell are you smoking? There was a warning that it *could* be ice free. Not to mention that North Pole being ice free is not the same as no ice anywhere. And so far, they're on track to have the smallest summer covering ever. By a few million square kilometers.
Really. If climate change wouldn't be such a huge issue, I'd take comfort in the fact that the only people disputing it can't even read the articles they're quoting. Instead, it's just depressing
You ask what I am smoking when every statement you make is completely wrong. If you bothered to look at the Graph it clearly shows that there is 10% more Arctic ice this year than last and is on pace to stay the same. Notice how the average varies between 7 and 14 million sq. km every year and the lowest (2007) was at 4 million sq. km. If this year would be lower by as much as you say, there'd be about 0 ice left in the Arctic.
If you care to look at this graph You'll notice that the ice area in the southern hemisphere has been slightly above average.
Yes, the article originally claimed 30% more ice than last year and was wrong because the pictures and the graph were a little misleading. It doesn't change the fact that in June every news outlet in the country said that there'd be almost no ice at the North Pole (it wasn't just national geographic) and they were very wrong.
Not only was August sun spot free, but there have been over 400 spotless days in the current solar cycle.
the Arctic ice refused to melt this summer. Does anyone remember the warning in June that the North Pole would be ice free?
Of course, their prediction was way off (as always). When someone realized how bad their prediction was, they fear monger some more with more dire warnings!
Remember that they have only been keeping sat. data for ice extent for a little over 3 decades, which of course is when the sun has been in a very active period.
I think this should be prioritized over voting 3rd-party in a presidential race. You can't effectively organize and support a national campaign that can challenge the mainstream parties, unless you have significant electorates across the country.
I completely agree with the prioritization. That's pretty much what most Ron Paul supporters have been doing as well. They have been volunteering and organizing for local candidates who support Ron Paul's views rather than debate on which third party candidate to vote for.
The biggest thing "nerds" can do to make a difference is to become a leader. Organize well-meaning people regardless of political affiliation to take over local government and make it work for you. If you don't get involved in politics you'll end up with idiots and psychopaths ruling over you. Take a class in basic criminology and you'll learn that psychopaths tend to seek powerful positions. What's more powerful than being a politician, especially considering the amount of power government has awarded itself in the past 220 years.
Main point: become a leader!
In 2008, Obama will simply out-organize you, while McCain will outspend you and use the right-wing media to destroy your reputation
Obama is actually well ahead in spending and "raising" money. Big corporations don't like to bet on a loser.
He is hosting a "Rally for the Republic," in Minneapolis, MN the same time the RNC is going on which has so far sold 10,000 out of 15,000 tickets at $17.76 a piece. How many Presidential contenders in history can say that?
Ron Paul has said many times that his campaign for President exceeded every one of his expectations. His goal wasn't to win the Presidency, but to inject different ideas into the race.
The goal for his continued campaign is to get like minded people into every facet of government. There are tons of "Ron Paul Republicans" running for office everywhere around the country. How many other Presidential contenders in history can say that?
There is almost no difference between McCain's and Obama's foreign policy.
Both want to increase troops into Afghanistan and have eluded to a confrontation to Pakistan (google: obama pakistan war).
Both are very agressive towards Iran, even though the CIA admits they are a decade away from a successful nuclear program.
Both talk about getting out of Iraq, but really mean reducing troops to 50k, plus contractors many years down the road. They'll both keep the giant permanent bases there.
They're both in support of Georgia, who is run by the NATO puppet Sakaashvili (a guy who ate his tie live on TV), and was the agressor against S. Ossetia. Biden has said we should give $1 billion to Georgia. We even have troops in Georgia fighting against the Russians. Anyone who is in support of provoking Russia is insane, yet both candidates do!
I keep hearing how McCain is supposed to be 4 more years of Bush, yet when I look at the statements by both they are indistinguishable.
(Government reports last week show the economy improving, and NOT in a recessaion, as the Democrats would have you believe).
Why on earth would you trust government statistics? They love to change how those statistics are calculated so they can manipulate them. If they can't manipulate those statistics easily they just stop printing them, like M3 information.
Visit this website if you want to see how the government manipulates basic economic data.
If you trust politicians, television and the government to tell you what to think, you're in trouble.
If you want to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, stop voting for the flawed two-party system. Simply vote third party to show that you want to be involved but hate the choices given to us by the corporate controlled parties.
It doesn't matter if you vote for Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader or Alan Keyes.
People need to start demanding that these 3rd party candidates get air time and in the debates. I'm really hoping that google or someone else has a debate with some of these candidates.
The best thing you can do to make real change and a difference is to take over your local government and work up. Get some friends and like minded people and start running for city council, judges, etc....
Slashdot Mirror
It IS unfair competition because Monticello is run as a corporation just like every other city in the United States. Don't believe me?
Well here is their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Just like the Annual Financial Report that public corporations must give their stockholders. The city of Monticello has $37.8 Million in cash assets alone! That means they are probably funding that $25 million bond with the taxpayers own money, at interest of course. Talk about sheering the sheep!
Now you know why the Soviet Union became a democracy. Their's more money in it!
Simply google CAFR and any city/state/county/school district to see the money they keep off the budgets.
Good day sir!
And the neocons say unregulated capitalism isn't destroying our democracy. Eisenhower, how we miss thee...
What you don't realize that every city in the United States is ran like a corporation!
Every city/county/state/school district must publish a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), just like every corporation must publish and Annual Financial Report and send it to their stockholders.
Here is Monticello, MN CAFR. They have $37.8 Million in cash assets alone. Simply google CAFR and any government institution to see how much money they're hiding from you (its in the open but kept separate from their annual budget).
town doesn't have money to keep fighting legal battles.
Not True. According to their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) they have $37.8 Million in Cash Investments alone. That should get them some decent representation.
Google any your city plus CAFR and see how much money your city/county/school district/state is hiding from you.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3325/show
Sponsor
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Co-Sponsors:
and 7 Co-Sponsors
Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA]
Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
I can't find who in the committee voted for it or against it. It passed committee 14 - 4.
Members on the committee:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm
Committee Members
Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, D-Vermont
Edward M. Kennedy
D-Massachusetts
Arlen Specter
Ranking Member, R-Pennsylvania
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
D-Delaware
Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah
Herb Kohl
D-Wisconsin
Charles E. Grassley
R-Iowa
Dianne Feinstein
D-California
Jon Kyl
R-Arizona
Russell D. Feingold
D-Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions
R-Alabama
Charles E. Schumer
D-New York
Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina
Richard J. Durbin
D-Illinois
John Cornyn
R-Texas
Biography
Benjamin L. Cardin
D-Maryland
Sam Brownback
R-Kansas
Sheldon Whitehouse
D-Rhode Island
Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma
...were already being harmed by the RIAA. That much hasn't changed.
This new organization will likely be like most all other organizations in the government: understaffed, underfunded, and incompetent.
Incompetence usually leads to bigger budgets. Haven't you noticed that Lord Bush?
Except when your friends with unlocked profiles post pictures with you tagged in them.
There are privacy settings that allow you to block others from seeing pictures you are tagged in from your profile. You can also block people from seeing your friends list and wall.
Facebook has pretty good privacy settings.
Why are there so many people in this thread worried about what other people are going to think about this? So many reactions were so similar it seems to be a Pavlovian response.
It is really sad that people who consider themselves to be smarter than others would immediately resort to the grade-school tactic of making fun of others because they are different than you in an attempt to make yourself feel accepted by the group.
I must be new here.
P.S. I'm no creationist or ID advocate.
The key to the difference in their foreign policies is the "(eventually)": For Obama, it's very clear that "eventually" means "within 16 months of taking office", whereas with McCain it appears that "eventually" means "as long as it takes for us to get what we want" (unclear what we're trying to get at this point). Obama's goal in Iraq is to get the troops out, McCain's goal in Iraq is to stay as long as necessary. That's a significant difference.
You are letting Obama mislead you with laywer speak. I'll translate Obama's official page for you.
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
Translation: He'll remove some troops 4-6k troops per month. The 50,000+ left will not be called "combat troops." They'll be in the permanent bases or the embassy. Don't forget the 100k+ private contractors.
Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.
Translation: The permanent bases are already being built by Bush. Why build more?
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats;
Translation: Our embassy in Iraq is the biggest embassy anywhere else in the world. It is larger than the Vatican.
if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
Translation: Any Iraqi who doesn't like its oil being stolen, or hates being occupied by a country from half way around the world will be called al Qaeda and summarily be killed.
Earlier this year radio talk show host Michael Reagan called for the murder of Mark Dice live on air. Mark Dice uploaded a 3 minute clip of the death threat to youtube. Reagan's lawyers filed a DMCA claim on the clip, youtube took down Mark Dice's entire channel which had a lot of original content and over a million views. Dice tried to counter claim but youtube did NOT reinstate his channel. Dice had to make a new channel and upload his content back.
The FBI or police would not charge Reagan for his death threats and Reagan is still on the air.
Meanwhile Obama was working with the NATO countries to see what he could do to get more of a NATO presence in Afghanistan and less of our troops there. Sounds to me like Obama wants to get out of Iraq and reduce the number of our troops in Afghanistan - not move from one to the other as you stated. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/obama.trip/index.html)
And to be quite frank (my apologies to those named Frank), had we stayed out of Iraq and focused on the issue at hand in Afghanistan we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
I had never heard about Obama's stance towards Iran - do you have a source I can look at to see what he envisions there? The same goes for Georgia.
Georgia: ...
Biden Calls For $1 Billion In Emergency Aid To Georgia, By Daniel
Cheney Backs Membership in NATO for Georgia - NYTimes.com
Buried in this article you'll find that "The current fighting began four days ago (August 6) when Georgian forces launched a surprise attack to regain control of South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since the end of a civil war in 1992."
YouTube - Saakashvili eats a tie
Iran:
Obama: Nuclear Iran 'unacceptable'
'Iran a major threat; I would never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect homeland, US interests, Democratic presidential candidate tells FOX's 'The Oâ(TM)Reilly Factor'
Afghanistan:
Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if we didn't fly out hundreds of Taliban on C-130's into Pakistan.
Simply research the Airlift of Evil
I'm sick of W's policies and can't wait to get him out of office... McCain looks like more of the same... I'd love to see Obama in office... And so far it really doesn't look like McCain is going to provide much of a challenge...
I fail to see the difference in McCain's and Obama's foreign policy.
Both want to take troops out (eventually) of Iraq to put them in Afghanistan. Both support the giant permanent bases being built in Iraq, which guarentee 50k+ troops even after any "pullout," plus the probably 100k+ contractors.
Both are agressive towards Iran, leaving nothing off the table (including a nuclear first strike). Iran has proven multiple times that they don't have a weapons program and they can legally enrich uranium for legal purposes. They've only been proven to enrich uranium to around 3.7% (you need 90% for weapons grade material).
Both want to give over a billion dollars to Georgia (as does Cheney), which is going to do nothing but provoke Russia even more. Georgia was the aggressor against S. Ossetia. Saakashvili is a NATO puppet who is extremely dangerous (and loves to eat ties).
Putting a new face onto the same terrible foreign policy decisions doesn't change anything.
You might want to try searching under his performance name, Tim Osman (not to be confused with one of the Osmond brothers)
Somehow my amazing HTML and previewing skills ate part of my first sentence. I meant to say,
"Although a slightly older skeleton is news, doesn't anyone remember 40,000 year old footprints in Mexico?"
Argh!
Although a slightly older skeleton is news, doesn't anyone remember in Mexico?
The more I read about archaeology and ancient history, the more I think that the conventional view is as Ford called it, "bunk."
the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been spending millions and possibly billions on face recognizing cameras for cities around the nation.
It wouldn't be too difficult for the DHS to take the information from google and incorporate it in their own databases.
In the U.S. we call thought crime "HR 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007."
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
What this bill does is set up a commission to decide what speech is terrorism and what isn't. During hearings for this bill they showed examples of this supposed homegrown terrorism. In between different Al-Qaeda websites, they showed Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Even if you don't agree with them, I doubt anyone would believe that asking questions makes you a homegrown terrorist. This bill was passed through the house 404-6 and has yet to be debated in the Senate.
The editors note that is now attached to the Register article that you link to really does not help to support your position. Incidentally I remember having read earlier that year that the warming trend will be put on hold this year because of a severe La Nina effect - apparently the National Geographic guys didn't get the memo.
The Register article DID help my position, however not as dramatically as I would have hoped :)
The Ice extent graph showed 10% more ice than last year, whereas the map showed 30% more pixels than last year. The two sets of data appeared to be contradictory, but they were not. Still, the 10% increase of ice from last year instead of their being almost no ice is a big difference.
Especially since it wasn't just national geographic reporting this, it was almost everyone!
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole ... ... ...
North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say - CNN.com
North Pole could be ice free in 2008 - climate-change - 25 April
ABC News: North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008
FOXNews.com - Report: North Pole May Be Ice-Free This Summer
North Pole Could be Ice-Free This Summer | LiveScience
Summer may see first ice-free North Pole - Climate Change- msnbc.com
North Pole May Be Ice-Free This Year - AOL News
No North Pole ice for 1st time in human history?_English_Xinhua
An Ice-Free North Pole? - TIME
Just a simple google search for "north pole ice free" will give you 1000's of articles. Notice how every one of these articles has very little variation. Not even fox news challenged the claim.
So much for a free and independent press.
What the hell are you smoking? There was a warning that it *could* be ice free. Not to mention that North Pole being ice free is not the same as no ice anywhere. And so far, they're on track to have the smallest summer covering ever. By a few million square kilometers.
Really. If climate change wouldn't be such a huge issue, I'd take comfort in the fact that the only people disputing it can't even read the articles they're quoting. Instead, it's just depressing
You ask what I am smoking when every statement you make is completely wrong. If you bothered to look at the Graph it clearly shows that there is 10% more Arctic ice this year than last and is on pace to stay the same. Notice how the average varies between 7 and 14 million sq. km every year and the lowest (2007) was at 4 million sq. km. If this year would be lower by as much as you say, there'd be about 0 ice left in the Arctic.
If you care to look at this graph You'll notice that the ice area in the southern hemisphere has been slightly above average.
Yes, the article originally claimed 30% more ice than last year and was wrong because the pictures and the graph were a little misleading. It doesn't change the fact that in June every news outlet in the country said that there'd be almost no ice at the North Pole (it wasn't just national geographic) and they were very wrong.
Not only was August sun spot free, but there have been over 400 spotless days in the current solar cycle.
the Arctic ice refused to melt this summer. Does anyone remember the warning in June that the North Pole would be ice free?
Of course, their prediction was way off (as always). When someone realized how bad their prediction was, they fear monger some more with more dire warnings!
Remember that they have only been keeping sat. data for ice extent for a little over 3 decades, which of course is when the sun has been in a very active period.
Joe Biden: "Governor Palin, I served with Dan Quayle; Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Dan Quayle."
In this case, that quote would be a great compliment.
I think this should be prioritized over voting 3rd-party in a presidential race. You can't effectively organize and support a national campaign that can challenge the mainstream parties, unless you have significant electorates across the country.
I completely agree with the prioritization. That's pretty much what most Ron Paul supporters have been doing as well. They have been volunteering and organizing for local candidates who support Ron Paul's views rather than debate on which third party candidate to vote for.
The biggest thing "nerds" can do to make a difference is to become a leader. Organize well-meaning people regardless of political affiliation to take over local government and make it work for you. If you don't get involved in politics you'll end up with idiots and psychopaths ruling over you. Take a class in basic criminology and you'll learn that psychopaths tend to seek powerful positions. What's more powerful than being a politician, especially considering the amount of power government has awarded itself in the past 220 years.
Main point: become a leader!
In 2008, Obama will simply out-organize you, while McCain will outspend you and use the right-wing media to destroy your reputation
Obama is actually well ahead in spending and "raising" money. Big corporations don't like to bet on a loser.
He is hosting a "Rally for the Republic," in Minneapolis, MN the same time the RNC is going on which has so far sold 10,000 out of 15,000 tickets at $17.76 a piece. How many Presidential contenders in history can say that?
Ron Paul has said many times that his campaign for President exceeded every one of his expectations. His goal wasn't to win the Presidency, but to inject different ideas into the race.
The goal for his continued campaign is to get like minded people into every facet of government. There are tons of "Ron Paul Republicans" running for office everywhere around the country. How many other Presidential contenders in history can say that?
There is almost no difference between McCain's and Obama's foreign policy.
Both want to increase troops into Afghanistan and have eluded to a confrontation to Pakistan (google: obama pakistan war).
Both are very agressive towards Iran, even though the CIA admits they are a decade away from a successful nuclear program.
Both talk about getting out of Iraq, but really mean reducing troops to 50k, plus contractors many years down the road. They'll both keep the giant permanent bases there.
They're both in support of Georgia, who is run by the NATO puppet Sakaashvili (a guy who ate his tie live on TV), and was the agressor against S. Ossetia. Biden has said we should give $1 billion to Georgia. We even have troops in Georgia fighting against the Russians. Anyone who is in support of provoking Russia is insane, yet both candidates do!
I keep hearing how McCain is supposed to be 4 more years of Bush, yet when I look at the statements by both they are indistinguishable.
Why on earth would you trust government statistics? They love to change how those statistics are calculated so they can manipulate them. If they can't manipulate those statistics easily they just stop printing them, like M3 information.
Visit this website if you want to see how the government manipulates basic economic data.
If you trust politicians, television and the government to tell you what to think, you're in trouble.
If you want to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, stop voting for the flawed two-party system. Simply vote third party to show that you want to be involved but hate the choices given to us by the corporate controlled parties.
It doesn't matter if you vote for Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader or Alan Keyes.
People need to start demanding that these 3rd party candidates get air time and in the debates. I'm really hoping that google or someone else has a debate with some of these candidates.
The best thing you can do to make real change and a difference is to take over your local government and work up. Get some friends and like minded people and start running for city council, judges, etc....