quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

The main media HATEs his movement and what he stands for.

Obama caught my attention -- but then he made comments/ mannerisms that told me he is "more of the same".

Ron Paul is about "less empire".    Obama and McCain  =  "more empire"

so anyone who considers a 3rd party is now fringe.  

I think this is a good move.    All 50 states likely will have more then D and R to choose from...but not all 50 will necessarily have Paul, Barr, Green or what have you.

Look at Polosi.  Look what she ran for...all the Dems..  they were going to "change"...and it has been 2 years... so what "change"  have they done??

nothing.

Being that we are so entwined in bail outs, and business as usual--  let both parties wonder of these "fringe"  Ron paul and other voters are going to give the election to the other party.

Both want endless empire..an endless bail outs for Wall Street.

The election is once again a 24 hour, info-mercial.   with the product being  about as useful as an infomerical gadget.....

I agree with almost all but I don't understand how you think the media is to blame.  I watched Blitzer interview Paul and Nader today and ,I might have missed it, but I didn't see him seething with hatred toward either of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I will quote Bethnai from another thread:

quote:


Fuck Ron Paul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The electoral, winner-take-all college pretty much limits the US to a two party system. Votes to the green or libertarian parties are pretty much throw aways. Perot who won 28% of the vote had zero to show for his efforts in the end, other than energizing the national debates. I still remember that my mom voted for him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

"Most govt. decisions these days are not about service to the people - but about service to the economy."
 
"To be a good American these days means to spend beyond your means....not to vote."
 
So true and its not confined to the US. Democracy is just a propaganda label, there is nothing democratic about the west. I've always said, if enough people vote against the interests of the rich and powerful, the troops will be on the street within 24 hours.

The evidence is that government bails out capital time and again but when it comes to ordinary people losing their home and all the possessions they have, the government sits back and says tough, the economy is going to a bad time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The electoral, winner-take-all college pretty much limits the US to a two party system. Votes to the green or libertarian parties are pretty much throw aways. Perot who won 28% of the vote had zero to show for his efforts in the end, other than energizing the national debates. I still remember that my mom voted for him.

Didn't change anything???????
Put Clinton in office with something like 46% of the vote lowest vote percentage in history.
Certainly Perot's 28% would not have split evenly it drew votes heavily from the Republicans.
Republicans got the message that their base was upset (although their response has been off target quite a bit in responding to it) Then they pulled together the "Contract with America" which ballanced the budget and lasted until Bush took office and they felt comfortable that they could do as they wished.

Slavehandsom,

"H.W. Bush left NAFTA on Clinton's desk, which Clinton promptly brought to Congress, which promptly a Republican Congress passed."

Talk about revisionist history.

The vote in the house was: 132 R and 102 D voting in favor; 43 R, 156 D, and 1 I against (if you do the math that shows a Democratic party controled house of reps in 1993. The Republicans didn't gain control of the House until 94
(175 R to 258 D in 1993 when it was passed)

The vote in the Senate was 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against (one D was absent but on record as being against) Which makes the Senate controlled by a Democratic majority of 56 to 44.