Unless the third party builds it's power base at the local level, then the state level, thus building it's national credibility, all a third party can do is disrupt elections, like Ross Perot did ... Did you enjoy Clinton?larry said:They know they can get away with it because the sheep will keep voting for the same two parties. The ol song "Voteing for anyone else is wasting your vote." is a self fufilling proficy. Only when a third liberty minded party starts getting some substantial vote numbers will the parties that be take notice.
Is that realistic or fatalistic? I feel the same way but there is so much going on about this on the internet that I think (MAYBE!) part of the ILLUSION is that most people are just cows in a cattlecart going off to slaughter, with no clue as to where they're headed. Maybe that's not true and that most of us know what's going on and don't plan to go along with it.larry said:I have no illusions of the slow loss of liberty we are undergoing being reversed.
We were warned --- by our leaders themselves, --- that we weren't going to be able to keep what we have (had?) without vigilence and a fight, but we let them take over our educational system and therefore our minds. it's aggravating to see HOW it was done, and to think if we were that apathetic in taking our country for granted then we deserve exactly what we're going to get.larry said:The US was a grand experiment in freedom.
I think people who have no problem with the "status quo" maybe just haven't been exposed to the information that would make them take a second look. There was a terrific uprising about the Patriot Act in cities all across the country, which tells me more of the mainstream people GET what's going on than don't.larry said:I also have no illusions as to change. The general herd and most here have no problem with the status quo. I'm only one person and my views are way off what the normal person thinks in most situations.
Things could be reversed however, the slow erosion of our freedoms, isn't so slow anymore.larry said:No I did not enjoy clinton and a lot is said in your post. NO! a third party can't suddenly spring on the national front and make a difference. People are too into the two party rut for that. I have no illusions of the slow loss of liberty we are undergoing being reversed.
The US is still the grand experiment in freedom. Now, the only thing is we are experimenting with giving up freedoms for a tenous government controlled security.larry said:The US was a grand experiment in freedom. It still is the most free country in the world but these freedoms have been diminishing even before my birth and continue to do so. This has nothing to do with current administration or parties except they continue the trend as those before them.
Larry like you, I will take the freedom and the danger. I dislike people that will do something, for the good of the people, as they see it.larry said:"For our own good" is the reasoning those who would limit freedom always use. My personal outlook is given the choice between freedom and danger vs more control and a more safety I will take more freedom and danger. That is how I am wired and always will be. I have no party allegiances.
I don't think the Lodi four were even revealed by the new government powers given to them by the patriot act.larry said:Lodi "Four" free and our rights preserved/Lodi "Four" at bay and our rights eroded in the least (More freedom, more danger vs less freedom less danger) ..................................I'll take the preserved rights. That's just my nature.
You views are not so far from my on. I came from a family of pioneers that lived on the cutting edge of the frontier since they came to America in 1630.larry said:I also have no illusions as to change. The general herd and most here have no problem with the status quo. I'm only one person and my views are way off what the normal person thinks in most situations. That's why I rarely discuss politics and am done with this subject. I won't convince anyone and nobody will change my views though many have tried.
I agree with you, we must have our freedom, have it at what ever the cost.larry said:Again I refer:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."............Ben Franklin
"In order to secure ourselves we are changing the very nature of our society. If that is allowed to continue our foes have won by our own hands." .......Me from above.
FREEDOM at ALL costs.
I don't remember the preelection figures on the first Clinton election, but, I do know he only garnered 41% of the vote. That makes him a minority vote president.silvertip said:<snip>
As I recall, contrary to what the talking heads said, Clinton’s numbers were better against our beloved President’s father’s numbers in a two man race, than when Mr. Peroit was involved. Peroit’s party was all imagination (what party isn’t to some extent?) and that has vanished. We need real 3rd and 4th parties; because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are cutting it.
I have haven't heard Ron Paul's name mentioned in the media. Internet forums are the only place where I have anything, at all, about Ron Paul. Paul must not have much traction if he isn't considered newsworthy by the media.Gunjunkie said:The place to start is support for Ron Paul and our total withdrawl from the UN... Then we can start replacing the people in our Nation with ones that Believe we have a Constitution and don't try to change it for their own personal gain and profit..
Since Zell Miller has jumped ship, with the Democratic Party and since I heard his speech at the Republican Party convention, Miller might be a viable candidate for 2008.SquirrelSniper said:Ron Paul is the man. Zell Miller is quite possibly the best Democrat that ever lived in the later half of the 20th century.