http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1997/nd97/nd96 or tmeyer.html
Isn't it nice that nuclear weapons testing poisoned so many americans?
You know, maybe if we hadn't slapped Japan with an oil embargo, they wouldn't have felt the need to attack us... But what am I saying, we all know Oil isn't a good justification for war, that's why you have lie about WMDs...
It's actually more like a sports sedan. Next time you get a chance, assuming you enjoy such things, take your parents car out on a wide stretch of freeway and get it up to about 130mph, make sure there are turns in the freeway. Note how it handles. Alot better than your typical luxury sedan.
But if it's not your thing, it's not your thing. But saying it's only slightly above a Civic is silly. A civic is an econo box, a Maxima is a sports sedan. And I would say it is a speed demon, given that mine can do about 140 without breaking a sweat. I have a newer one, stock with 250hp though, so mine might be different than your parents.
But some people aren't in to that type of driving.
The parent you replied to mentions a Maxima. Do you know anything about that car?
You think of cars as paintings? How do you mount them on your wall for display?
"rought to you by the people who think 14 seconds is something to be proud of."
Brought to you by the people who think driving is about going in a straightline for a short distance and fear speeds above 100mph.
Sport Sedans are about high speeds, not drag racing. Some people don't get it at all.
I'm not a Kerry advocate, so I can't answer your question. I'm voting Libertarian. Would you like me to tell you why I think that is a good choice?:)
I offer this constructive criticism: Perhaps you shouldn't count tax cuts for yourself as a reason to vote for someone. We need to start thinking like a country again, and that means the elimination of seeing elections as a way to secure a few more dollars for ourselves.
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for someone because of your beliefs of how they will handle the economy, but take the personal part out of it. I mean seriously, I sense this is true of you, wouldn't you vote for someone who could restore peace and balance back to our country, even if it meant an increase in taxes? I would. The fed can and does print dollars easily enough, but peace and balance, and CIVILITY are priceless.
But I'm not saying Kerry is the man to do this, I'm just trying to respectfully and politely address an attitude. We need to purge ourselves of the "me me me", and return to a point when we say "we we we". I want OUR America back. And I can't have OUR America back as long as everyone is looking out for number one and thinking of everyone else as number 2. **WE** are number 1. I hope you take this in the spirit it was meant. Please vote for who you honestly think is the best choice for our country as a whole. As long as you do that, I think you're making the right choice, no matter who it turns out to be.
"i fear that deep down, on some moral level - its The Right Thing - from an egalitarian sense... but human instinct is based not on what is right but what is best for number one. And this doesn't feel best for my selfish self."
That's the type of honesty with ones self that gives birth to greatness. Seriously, run with this, face it, embrace it, and you will reach a point where it no longer scares you and you are no longer selfish.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way to make a living. Adapt, change. If you love IT work, start your own business. It is not impossible, but it is work, and it is very rewarding. In fact, start your own business, and utilize outsourcing to your benefit.
This is better than fear, it is overcoming your fear and making the thing you fear, work for your benefit. This is the principle that allows a person to overcome all of lifes obstacles. I hope I don't sound preachy, I'm only trying to encourage.
Well I'm not a conservative, but I've noticed this among my conservative friends. People who love Bush but hate Ashcroft. Which begs the question, why on earth does Bush retain him?
Answer: Because his supporters haven't punished him for empowering a man they hate. Fact is, you did vote for Ashcroft, because you voted for Bush.
Where does the buck stop when it comes to the executive branch? The president. He is the one to blame for Ashcroft being empowered. Period. There is no other logical way to look at it. Voting for Bush, is voting for the people he apoints. His apointees do not exist in a vacuum. They are where they are, because Bush put them there, and Bush can put them there, because the people who supported him, put Bush there.
So I guess in reality, the buck stops at the people who put the president in office. I'm not trying to lay a personal guilt trip on you, but when you vote for someone, you're voting for all the baggage that person brings to office. Ya gotta dwell in reality on this one. Just like we can thank the Clintonites for Janet Reno, we can thank the Bushites for Aschroft.
"Maybe if President Bush and his people would actually have provided sound reasoning instead of playing on the emotions of people"
This is the fundamental problem I have with the Bush supporters. Their reasons go:
Do you want to be blown up?
Do you want to die in a terrorist attack?
These guys are trying to kill you!!!
And what makes it all worse, just by criticizing these things, you get labled:
A terrorist sympathizer
A communist
A liberal democrat
A kerry supporter
Let's just face it, the age of reason is gone.
Welcome to the new cult order. Please check your free thought at the door, otherwise you're a gay communist liberal democrat kerry supporting terrorist sympathizer. It doesn't matter that none of these things logically are supported by the above criticism, you just are cuz we say so.
Anyone else bothered about the term "infect" being applied to ideas?
I'm not implying anything, just making an observation, but if I was this current government, I'd want technology that could track this in the name of putting down dissent. And that's what I'd call dissent, infection.
I'd say you're both right, and both wrong. The problem is a mix all the things you both mentioned.
This may seem anecdotal, but since there is no way to research how often this occurs(thanks to resistance to accountability on the part of the teachers unions), that's all I can offer you... but... There was one teacher at my school, who gave good grades to black students, poorer grades to white students, did NOT know the subject matter she was teaching(made mistakes EVERY day, consistantly, and gave confusing explanations of what she was teaching, which in my case was Algebra), and when one person asked her why she doesn't teach, she replied "By law, I'm only required to take roll"
There are some real crappy teachers out there, and they never get fired. As long as they don't do something politically incorrect, like yell at a kid, or be abusive, they will never be fired. And every student that is taught under them, will walk away with a very bitter attitude towards public schools. Like me.
My kid is either being home schooled or going to private school. I'll be god damned, before I let him experience what I've experienced in public schools. And I blame the teachers union. Why? Because every !@#$#% teacher in that school knew about this person, and no one did anything. She'll retire, after a lifetime of shoddy, half assed work, with nice benefits and a pension plan, and really, she doesn't deserve it at all. She was just the cherry on top too.
Between the racism that is allowed to occur towards whites by minorities(I was in an area where whites were the minority), Biology classes with no microscopes(but the sports program got 50k for equipment!), Fully equipped electronics classes(though with 20 year old equipment) that go unused(the classroom was empty all 4 years of highschool, I never saw it opened once), and school dances that had to have armed security personell, There is no god damend way in hell, I'm going to let my kid go to a public school. It was inexcusable and I will never forget that, and yes, the parents were big time to blame, but so were those teachers.
"Rather than giving money to the FSF, why not give money to groups which write free software?"
I think giving the money to the FSF Europe is a better idea, as it benefits a much wider group of Free software developers. From their website:
The FSF Europe supports, coordinates and develops projects in the Free Software area, especially the GNU Project.
It also provides computer resources to Free Software developers to enable them to continue their developments.
The FSF Europe helps companies to develop business models based on Free Software or fit existing models to it; it encourages companies in their evolution to Free Software.
To make it easier for companies based on Free Software to be commercially successful, the FSF Europe also seeks to broaden the market for Free Software.
The FSF Europe helps coordinating and networking other initiatives in the Free Software area.
I went through a bump just like that. I couldn't get hired for 7 months, thanks to a 5 month stint at a company that eventually went belly up a year after laying me off. After 6 months of interviewing for jobs(I was also volunteering for non-profits in my area, in order to have something on my resume for that time), I realized that I was at a disadvantage to the MANY who also were looking for work but didn't have a short stint on their resume.
So when I was asked about that time, I explained it honestly, and offered to come in as a contractor if they had any concerns about my work ethic or ability to do the job, pointing out that they'd be able to fire me at any time, and could pay me less at first. My 4th interview using this strategy, got me in as a contractor. They kept me there for 6 months(no health benefits, and not really good pay), but then they hired me full time.
And when Clinton was president, he sent Americans to war for reasons that were not later justified. In fact, he bombed Iraq for reasons of WMD.
And fiscal policy issues are hardly my major concern. I have protested this war, I have spoken up, I have come very close to getting arrested. The thing is, Kerry might stop certain aspects of this war, but it will be no time at all before we're bombing someone again. How many years did we go under clinton without bombing someone? We ran sorties over Iraq throughout the Clinton years. We went into Somalia, Yugoslavia, and other places. We used depleted Uranium. We used the UN when we could, and went with NATO when we couldn't.
"before I worry about some B.S. intern scandal and mudslinging"
Yes, that's a load of crap. With all the other bullshit going on, and people focus on that? Pathetic. Couldn't agree more, in this one little instance.
"Agreed, of course - neither that nor any other corrective to the voting process will ever occur... until, perhaps, it is far too late."
I definetly have felt that way at times. But for me, the important thing is to do and say what I can and never give up hope. I'd rather go down hoping, than go down in despair. Not the most motivating words, but I think they are realistic.
"A few relative outsiders have been elected to lesser office in recent years, so there is an outside chance..."
I do agree that an independent like you've described could have an enormous impact. I've also been working on ways to craft election reform arguments in such a way so as to appeal to the widest possible amount of voters. One thing we have as an option, but it would not be easy(but what in life worth doing is?), is to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in all 50 states to reform the election process.
One reason I think this might be doable, is the fact that there are plenty of people on each side of the political "fence" that although they will vote lesser of two evils, are not happy about doing so. Such an initiative would have to be spearheaded by people not tainted with political afilliations, or better still, a cross section of republicans and democrats. I believe arguments could be crafted, that would say the same thing, only one set would be said in ways that would appeal to democrats and another set to republicans.
Although I'm not sure "none of the above" would be doable. I'd prefer the Australian system(minus the compulsory part, I don't like that), which another poster has just clued me into. I have to read more about it first, but I think it could be sellable to members of both "sides". What person would rather have someone they are dead set against winning, over having their 2nd choice candidate winning? Nobody I know could say this honestly. And I think that's something that if executed and sold properly, could gain broad appeal. but it would require people like us, to work at it, and evengalize it. But, I think it could be done.
I appreciate your civilized tone and candor. I also appreciate the link, which I've book marked to read up on later. However, I can not vote for less harm. That's not good for me and only works to continue the cycle.
Please read up on the Pentagon Papers if you haven't done so already. Google for them. Take care.
"I am with you... voting for the Libertarian party candidate, whoever that may turn out to be."
Good, vote Libertarian if that is what you think is best. I don't know if I will(it depends on who gets the nod by the Libertarians, as well as who gets the nod in other parties), but if that is what you think is best, please do so. That's exactly what this country needs, people voting for who they think is best.
"The real way to fix our system is to change our entire presidential voting system. It gives a complete advantage to the two parties. Kill the electoral college (yes I've heard all the lame arguments in favor of it), institute a better voting system that allows you to vote for multiple people, ranking them from highest to lowest (or even approval voting)."
I like that idea.
"Because the real problem we're facing is the idea that not voting for one of the two parties is throwing your vote away"
Exactly! Bingo! It's people giving their faith to this idea, that keeps the two parties in power! How much more painfully obvious could it be?!
especially because...
"However, the two party system in place is never going to overthrow the system that allows them to maintain control."
Why would they? It makes positively, absolutely, NO SENSE. Why do people even argue for that!? Crap. Anyone thinking that the democrats are going to change things, ought to study history, specifically, the pentagon papers(google for them). Read, READ, READ, the history of democrats saying nice sounding things during the election, and then in the backrooms, doing all the dastardly things they take issue with when the republicans do them. Nothing has changed, nothing.
"Dude, you really should wake up to the fact that the only way out of the current two-party-which-is-really-a-single-party political system you have in the US is a massive grass-roots change of mind, a revolution of sorts."
Actually, I'm wide awake to that fact. Why else would I be saying what I'm saying?
"You simply cannot hope to achieve a change of that magnitude by playing within the system."
YES. What about what I've said makes you believe I think the current political order is going to change things? I believe in the post you replied to, and in my other posts, that I've been arguing the exact opposite. I will NOT play within the current order of things and as evidence to this, I will vote my conscience, instead of playing politics as usual. I am ready to join any grass roots campaign that shares my core principles. I will NOT, however, take part in any type of violent revolution. One of my core principles is against the use of force. You either fight to change things, or fight to punish. I will only fight to change things, and that fighting will not be in any type of violent uprising.
"Having acknowledged that as a fact, you should adapt to the rules of the game, and start choosing between two evils."
Do you not see your own confusion? On the one hand, you state things won't change within the current order, and then on the other hand, you start to argue for me working within the current order!? WTF!? What sense does that make?
"I believe you'll have no trouble differentiating which is which."
No, because in my eyes, it is pretty black and white. If a candidate is a lying politician owned by corporations, he will not serve my best interests. If both candidates are, neither will. Therefore, I will vote neither. It is pretty simple.
"Then, in your free time you could work towards a revolution"
Even now, I'm working towards a revolution of thought. You argue in favor of me supporting the old order of things when I vote, and then do meaningless things in my free time. Instead, I will take a stand at the polls, and in my free time. There is no other way to change things, short of a violent revolution, which I will not take part in because it will only change things for the worse.
"The stakes are simply too high to allow oneself to take the moral high ground and refuse to play."
This isn't moral high ground, this is about being true to myself. I only have one shot at life, and if I waste it chasing convoluted and confused political theories like yours, I will die a miserable man, keeping the cycle going, just like you are arguing for me to do. I will not waste my life that way.
"Try not to forget: if those 13000 Florida votes for Nader went to Gore, the world as a whole would probably be in a very different state right now. Isn't that worth considering?"
Would it be in a different state? Didn't Clinton wage wars? What makes you think Al Gore wouldn't? What makes you think I even wanted Al Gore to win? The truth is, the economy would still be in the toilet both because of September 11th, and the fact that it was going down the drain in the final years of Clinton. Didn't clinton bomb Iraq because of WMD? Didn't Clinton join forces with NATO(not the UN, because he couldn't get them to go along with it), to launch an agression on Yugoslavia, in violation of international law? And during that agression on Yugoslavia, didn't we use depleted Uranium in the assault, and then later refused to work with the UN, to help them find where the munitions were used in order to clean them up? Wasn't there a vast lack of evidence offered us after that assault, to suppot the reasons we were told we were going there? Doesn't this sound like Iraq at all?
You offer me the other side of the same coin, and a continuation of the cycle that got us here. I offer you a way out. It won't work overnight, but it will work and it will take time, and it may require that we have someone whom we wil
"But in a non-preferential system such as you have in america you can be damned sure that I would vote for Kerry even though I don't totally agree with him"
If that is what you thought was right, then I would expect you to do it and agree with you doing it, even if I didn't agree with who you were voting for.
"bah, sad times we live in."
Cheer up. At least Hitler doesn't run things.:) It could always be worse...
Slashdot Mirror
You got that effectiveness testing right...
6 or tmeyer.html
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1997/nd97/nd9
Isn't it nice that nuclear weapons testing poisoned so many americans?
You know, maybe if we hadn't slapped Japan with an oil embargo, they wouldn't have felt the need to attack us... But what am I saying, we all know Oil isn't a good justification for war, that's why you have lie about WMDs...
Thank god for that. That would take the fun out of driving.
It's actually more like a sports sedan. Next time you get a chance, assuming you enjoy such things, take your parents car out on a wide stretch of freeway and get it up to about 130mph, make sure there are turns in the freeway. Note how it handles. Alot better than your typical luxury sedan.
But if it's not your thing, it's not your thing. But saying it's only slightly above a Civic is silly. A civic is an econo box, a Maxima is a sports sedan. And I would say it is a speed demon, given that mine can do about 140 without breaking a sweat. I have a newer one, stock with 250hp though, so mine might be different than your parents.
But some people aren't in to that type of driving.
I understand the kernel doesn't panic, it just dies for your sins...
The parent you replied to mentions a Maxima. Do you know anything about that car? You think of cars as paintings? How do you mount them on your wall for display?
"rought to you by the people who think 14 seconds is something to be proud of." Brought to you by the people who think driving is about going in a straightline for a short distance and fear speeds above 100mph. Sport Sedans are about high speeds, not drag racing. Some people don't get it at all.
I'm not a Kerry advocate, so I can't answer your question. I'm voting Libertarian. Would you like me to tell you why I think that is a good choice? :)
I offer this constructive criticism: Perhaps you shouldn't count tax cuts for yourself as a reason to vote for someone. We need to start thinking like a country again, and that means the elimination of seeing elections as a way to secure a few more dollars for ourselves.
I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for someone because of your beliefs of how they will handle the economy, but take the personal part out of it. I mean seriously, I sense this is true of you, wouldn't you vote for someone who could restore peace and balance back to our country, even if it meant an increase in taxes? I would. The fed can and does print dollars easily enough, but peace and balance, and CIVILITY are priceless.
But I'm not saying Kerry is the man to do this, I'm just trying to respectfully and politely address an attitude. We need to purge ourselves of the "me me me", and return to a point when we say "we we we". I want OUR America back. And I can't have OUR America back as long as everyone is looking out for number one and thinking of everyone else as number 2. **WE** are number 1. I hope you take this in the spirit it was meant. Please vote for who you honestly think is the best choice for our country as a whole. As long as you do that, I think you're making the right choice, no matter who it turns out to be.
"i fear that deep down, on some moral level - its The Right Thing - from an egalitarian sense... but human instinct is based not on what is right but what is best for number one. And this doesn't feel best for my selfish self."
That's the type of honesty with ones self that gives birth to greatness. Seriously, run with this, face it, embrace it, and you will reach a point where it no longer scares you and you are no longer selfish.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way to make a living. Adapt, change. If you love IT work, start your own business. It is not impossible, but it is work, and it is very rewarding. In fact, start your own business, and utilize outsourcing to your benefit.
This is better than fear, it is overcoming your fear and making the thing you fear, work for your benefit. This is the principle that allows a person to overcome all of lifes obstacles. I hope I don't sound preachy, I'm only trying to encourage.
Well I'm not a conservative, but I've noticed this among my conservative friends. People who love Bush but hate Ashcroft. Which begs the question, why on earth does Bush retain him?
Answer: Because his supporters haven't punished him for empowering a man they hate. Fact is, you did vote for Ashcroft, because you voted for Bush. Where does the buck stop when it comes to the executive branch? The president. He is the one to blame for Ashcroft being empowered. Period. There is no other logical way to look at it. Voting for Bush, is voting for the people he apoints. His apointees do not exist in a vacuum. They are where they are, because Bush put them there, and Bush can put them there, because the people who supported him, put Bush there.
So I guess in reality, the buck stops at the people who put the president in office. I'm not trying to lay a personal guilt trip on you, but when you vote for someone, you're voting for all the baggage that person brings to office. Ya gotta dwell in reality on this one. Just like we can thank the Clintonites for Janet Reno, we can thank the Bushites for Aschroft.
"Maybe if President Bush and his people would actually have provided sound reasoning instead of playing on the emotions of people"
This is the fundamental problem I have with the Bush supporters. Their reasons go:
Do you want to be blown up?
Do you want to die in a terrorist attack?
These guys are trying to kill you!!!
And what makes it all worse, just by criticizing these things, you get labled:
A terrorist sympathizer
A communist
A liberal democrat
A kerry supporter
Let's just face it, the age of reason is gone.
Welcome to the new cult order. Please check your free thought at the door, otherwise you're a gay communist liberal democrat kerry supporting terrorist sympathizer. It doesn't matter that none of these things logically are supported by the above criticism, you just are cuz we say so.
Anyone else bothered about the term "infect" being applied to ideas? I'm not implying anything, just making an observation, but if I was this current government, I'd want technology that could track this in the name of putting down dissent. And that's what I'd call dissent, infection.
I'd say you're both right, and both wrong. The problem is a mix all the things you both mentioned.
This may seem anecdotal, but since there is no way to research how often this occurs(thanks to resistance to accountability on the part of the teachers unions), that's all I can offer you... but... There was one teacher at my school, who gave good grades to black students, poorer grades to white students, did NOT know the subject matter she was teaching(made mistakes EVERY day, consistantly, and gave confusing explanations of what she was teaching, which in my case was Algebra), and when one person asked her why she doesn't teach, she replied "By law, I'm only required to take roll"
There are some real crappy teachers out there, and they never get fired. As long as they don't do something politically incorrect, like yell at a kid, or be abusive, they will never be fired. And every student that is taught under them, will walk away with a very bitter attitude towards public schools. Like me.
My kid is either being home schooled or going to private school. I'll be god damned, before I let him experience what I've experienced in public schools. And I blame the teachers union. Why? Because every !@#$#% teacher in that school knew about this person, and no one did anything. She'll retire, after a lifetime of shoddy, half assed work, with nice benefits and a pension plan, and really, she doesn't deserve it at all. She was just the cherry on top too.
Between the racism that is allowed to occur towards whites by minorities(I was in an area where whites were the minority), Biology classes with no microscopes(but the sports program got 50k for equipment!), Fully equipped electronics classes(though with 20 year old equipment) that go unused(the classroom was empty all 4 years of highschool, I never saw it opened once), and school dances that had to have armed security personell, There is no god damend way in hell, I'm going to let my kid go to a public school. It was inexcusable and I will never forget that, and yes, the parents were big time to blame, but so were those teachers.
Only a nazi would suggest that!
"Rather than giving money to the FSF, why not give money to groups which write free software?"
I think giving the money to the FSF Europe is a better idea, as it benefits a much wider group of Free software developers. From their website:
The FSF Europe supports, coordinates and develops projects in the Free Software area, especially the GNU Project.
It also provides computer resources to Free Software developers to enable them to continue their developments.
The FSF Europe helps companies to develop business models based on Free Software or fit existing models to it; it encourages companies in their evolution to Free Software.
To make it easier for companies based on Free Software to be commercially successful, the FSF Europe also seeks to broaden the market for Free Software.
The FSF Europe helps coordinating and networking other initiatives in the Free Software area.
I went through a bump just like that. I couldn't get hired for 7 months, thanks to a 5 month stint at a company that eventually went belly up a year after laying me off. After 6 months of interviewing for jobs(I was also volunteering for non-profits in my area, in order to have something on my resume for that time), I realized that I was at a disadvantage to the MANY who also were looking for work but didn't have a short stint on their resume.
So when I was asked about that time, I explained it honestly, and offered to come in as a contractor if they had any concerns about my work ethic or ability to do the job, pointing out that they'd be able to fire me at any time, and could pay me less at first. My 4th interview using this strategy, got me in as a contractor. They kept me there for 6 months(no health benefits, and not really good pay), but then they hired me full time.
So this worked for me.
That's vindictive, but dammit, who can blame you? :)
"They like lock-in as much as Microsoft does."
I couldn't have said it better.
And when Clinton was president, he sent Americans to war for reasons that were not later justified. In fact, he bombed Iraq for reasons of WMD.
And fiscal policy issues are hardly my major concern. I have protested this war, I have spoken up, I have come very close to getting arrested. The thing is, Kerry might stop certain aspects of this war, but it will be no time at all before we're bombing someone again. How many years did we go under clinton without bombing someone? We ran sorties over Iraq throughout the Clinton years. We went into Somalia, Yugoslavia, and other places. We used depleted Uranium. We used the UN when we could, and went with NATO when we couldn't.
"before I worry about some B.S. intern scandal and mudslinging"
Yes, that's a load of crap. With all the other bullshit going on, and people focus on that? Pathetic. Couldn't agree more, in this one little instance.
"Agreed, of course - neither that nor any other corrective to the voting process will ever occur... until, perhaps, it is far too late."
I definetly have felt that way at times. But for me, the important thing is to do and say what I can and never give up hope. I'd rather go down hoping, than go down in despair. Not the most motivating words, but I think they are realistic.
"A few relative outsiders have been elected to lesser office in recent years, so there is an outside chance..."
I do agree that an independent like you've described could have an enormous impact. I've also been working on ways to craft election reform arguments in such a way so as to appeal to the widest possible amount of voters. One thing we have as an option, but it would not be easy(but what in life worth doing is?), is to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in all 50 states to reform the election process.
One reason I think this might be doable, is the fact that there are plenty of people on each side of the political "fence" that although they will vote lesser of two evils, are not happy about doing so. Such an initiative would have to be spearheaded by people not tainted with political afilliations, or better still, a cross section of republicans and democrats. I believe arguments could be crafted, that would say the same thing, only one set would be said in ways that would appeal to democrats and another set to republicans.
Although I'm not sure "none of the above" would be doable. I'd prefer the Australian system(minus the compulsory part, I don't like that), which another poster has just clued me into. I have to read more about it first, but I think it could be sellable to members of both "sides". What person would rather have someone they are dead set against winning, over having their 2nd choice candidate winning? Nobody I know could say this honestly. And I think that's something that if executed and sold properly, could gain broad appeal. but it would require people like us, to work at it, and evengalize it. But, I think it could be done.
"Well, yes, I was joking"
:)
You know, my first instinct told me you were joking, but it was late, and other people were being so serious...
That sucks to, because when I first read it I had a great laugh.
I appreciate your civilized tone and candor. I also appreciate the link, which I've book marked to read up on later. However, I can not vote for less harm. That's not good for me and only works to continue the cycle.
Please read up on the Pentagon Papers if you haven't done so already. Google for them. Take care.
"I am with you ... voting for the Libertarian party candidate, whoever that may turn out to be."
Good, vote Libertarian if that is what you think is best. I don't know if I will(it depends on who gets the nod by the Libertarians, as well as who gets the nod in other parties), but if that is what you think is best, please do so. That's exactly what this country needs, people voting for who they think is best.
"The real way to fix our system is to change our entire presidential voting system. It gives a complete advantage to the two parties. Kill the electoral college (yes I've heard all the lame arguments in favor of it), institute a better voting system that allows you to vote for multiple people, ranking them from highest to lowest (or even approval voting)."
I like that idea.
"Because the real problem we're facing is the idea that not voting for one of the two parties is throwing your vote away"
Exactly! Bingo! It's people giving their faith to this idea, that keeps the two parties in power! How much more painfully obvious could it be?!
especially because... "However, the two party system in place is never going to overthrow the system that allows them to maintain control."
Why would they? It makes positively, absolutely, NO SENSE. Why do people even argue for that!? Crap. Anyone thinking that the democrats are going to change things, ought to study history, specifically, the pentagon papers(google for them). Read, READ, READ, the history of democrats saying nice sounding things during the election, and then in the backrooms, doing all the dastardly things they take issue with when the republicans do them. Nothing has changed, nothing.
"Dude, you really should wake up to the fact that the only way out of the current two-party-which-is-really-a-single-party political system you have in the US is a massive grass-roots change of mind, a revolution of sorts."
Actually, I'm wide awake to that fact. Why else would I be saying what I'm saying?
"You simply cannot hope to achieve a change of that magnitude by playing within the system."
YES. What about what I've said makes you believe I think the current political order is going to change things? I believe in the post you replied to, and in my other posts, that I've been arguing the exact opposite. I will NOT play within the current order of things and as evidence to this, I will vote my conscience, instead of playing politics as usual. I am ready to join any grass roots campaign that shares my core principles. I will NOT, however, take part in any type of violent revolution. One of my core principles is against the use of force. You either fight to change things, or fight to punish. I will only fight to change things, and that fighting will not be in any type of violent uprising.
"Having acknowledged that as a fact, you should adapt to the rules of the game, and start choosing between two evils."
Do you not see your own confusion? On the one hand, you state things won't change within the current order, and then on the other hand, you start to argue for me working within the current order!? WTF!? What sense does that make?
"I believe you'll have no trouble differentiating which is which."
No, because in my eyes, it is pretty black and white. If a candidate is a lying politician owned by corporations, he will not serve my best interests. If both candidates are, neither will. Therefore, I will vote neither. It is pretty simple.
"Then, in your free time you could work towards a revolution"
Even now, I'm working towards a revolution of thought. You argue in favor of me supporting the old order of things when I vote, and then do meaningless things in my free time. Instead, I will take a stand at the polls, and in my free time. There is no other way to change things, short of a violent revolution, which I will not take part in because it will only change things for the worse.
"The stakes are simply too high to allow oneself to take the moral high ground and refuse to play."
This isn't moral high ground, this is about being true to myself. I only have one shot at life, and if I waste it chasing convoluted and confused political theories like yours, I will die a miserable man, keeping the cycle going, just like you are arguing for me to do. I will not waste my life that way.
"Try not to forget: if those 13000 Florida votes for Nader went to Gore, the world as a whole would probably be in a very different state right now. Isn't that worth considering?"
Would it be in a different state? Didn't Clinton wage wars? What makes you think Al Gore wouldn't? What makes you think I even wanted Al Gore to win? The truth is, the economy would still be in the toilet both because of September 11th, and the fact that it was going down the drain in the final years of Clinton. Didn't clinton bomb Iraq because of WMD? Didn't Clinton join forces with NATO(not the UN, because he couldn't get them to go along with it), to launch an agression on Yugoslavia, in violation of international law? And during that agression on Yugoslavia, didn't we use depleted Uranium in the assault, and then later refused to work with the UN, to help them find where the munitions were used in order to clean them up? Wasn't there a vast lack of evidence offered us after that assault, to suppot the reasons we were told we were going there? Doesn't this sound like Iraq at all?
You offer me the other side of the same coin, and a continuation of the cycle that got us here. I offer you a way out. It won't work overnight, but it will work and it will take time, and it may require that we have someone whom we wil
"Yes, and if Kerry wins, come next election it will be the Republicans' job to make people's priority unseating him."
Exactly. And the merry go round continues and nothing will change.
"But in a non-preferential system such as you have in america you can be damned sure that I would vote for Kerry even though I don't totally agree with him"
:) It could always be worse...
If that is what you thought was right, then I would expect you to do it and agree with you doing it, even if I didn't agree with who you were voting for.
"bah, sad times we live in."
Cheer up. At least Hitler doesn't run things.