It seems that the discussion has been limited to the two major parties.
The corporate media has not bothered to follow up the story of the greatest robbery in history by seeking opinions and input from sources outside those controlling the corrupt system.

I'll start.
As I am Canadian, I'm not up to speed as to just who all the third party candidates are, and what the names of their parties are.

I am however, familiar with Ralph Nader.
The first link will be to the Nader site...anyone else seeking to improve on the discussion of the rape of American taxpaying citizens should feel free to add links to other third party sites offering their solutions.

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2062-Congressional-Backbone-Needed.html

Let the Libertarian Party show you the light!

Jake: "The band... the band..."
Reverend Cleophus James: "DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT?"
Jake: "THE BAND!"
Reverend Cleophus James: "DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT?"
Elwood: "What light?"
Reverend Cleophus James: "HAVE YOU SEEEEN THE LIGHT?"
Jake: "YES! YES! JESUS H. TAP-DANCING CHRIST... I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!"

The Blues Brothers, 1980.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

LOL
Lets wait for some other links before we decide who has the "light".

As long as the voting is one vote for one person, the to get a majority you need two parties. If you have more than two parties you will possibly not get a majority.

A different voting system is need to give third parties a chance.

Socialist Equality Party (SEP)

I am going to look for them on the ballot this year. If I see them, I'm voting for them. If not, I'm going for Nader. Dems and Reps are no different to me anymore.

I like reading a site that the SEP leaders regularly write on World Wide Socialist Web Site. They pretty much always bash the gov of the USA and the capitalists, but I think it needs some bashing.

As long as the voting is one vote for one person, the to get a majority you need two parties. If you have more than two parties you will possibly not get a majority.

A different voting system is need to give third parties a chance.

no, you don´t need different voting system

As long as the voting is one vote for one person, the to get a majority you need two parties. If you have more than two parties you will possibly not get a majority.

A different voting system is need to give third parties a chance.

We have had a minority government in Canada for about three years now.

All that means is the party that has formed the government must make concessions in order to gain support from one or two of the opposition parties.

Overall, a minority government is better for the citizens because of the horse trading necessary to function as a government.

A party with a clear majority can do whatever it wants to for the term in power, leading to arrogant corrupt behaviour.

and you can easily find all countries where are just two political parties doing so

A different voting system is need to give third parties a chance.

One that doesn't require the seemingly difficult task of counting votes... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Let the Libertarian Party show you the light!

I read as much as I could Rush.
I really did.

When going through their platform I got as far as Labor Markets before feeling somewhat ill at ease.

This is nothing more than a corporatist individualist profiteering and screw everyone else line of thought.

Sorry Rush...that is a nightmare scenario for the VAST majority of people.
The reality of human life is that we need co-operative methods to survive.

The alternative offered by libertarians would have us preying upon each other for profit.
Taking advantage of the weak, the less educated and both young and old would be vulnerable to the jackals.

Disguising corporatism as individual rights is disingenuous (spelling?) and I would hope that people can see through the facade.

i have always counted "survival of the fittest" as one way of getting out of this mess, but are you really ready for it, as the times goes by till you make up your mind, i am communist, but don´t whine afterwards that was what we meant.

The ticket for the current mess is Guiliani/Romney.

Guliani to get rid of the crooks and Romney to instill sound business practices--write them in.

Bloomberg can be Secretary of the Treasury

Daddio

Don't you dare vote for any incumbent--we have been poorly served by our elected officials.

The most intelligent candidate in the race is Ralph Nader.
The corporate media doesn't even take notice.

i have always counted "survival of the fittest" as one way of getting out of this mess, but are you really ready for it, as the times goes by till you make up your mind, i am communist, but don´t whine afterwards that was what we meant.

Survival of the fittest is a term used by many, but they don't actually mean it.
What they refer to is survival of the richest, not the fittest.

Being an ex-pro football player, I am quite certain that I could do quite well in a world where the actual physically superior could prey on the weaker of the species.

The difference in the two theories of just what constitutes "fittest" lies in who becomes the prey.

I'm pretty sure I could have George Bush and Dick Cheney turning on a spit over a campfire with very little effort or danger to myself in this world of survival of the fittest.

Now, we all agree that this is not the kind of world we wish to live in, yet we allow those with vast wealth to do the same to us, metaphorically speaking of course.
We have laws against behaviours where the physically stronger take what they want from the weaker, yet the wealthy are virtually unconstrained in their desires and actions.

At times like this, I always like to start singing the AEROSMITH song..."Eat The Rich"

hups, it should have been: that was not what we etc

When going through their platform I got as far as Labor Markets before feeling somewhat ill at ease.

You mean this? "We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain."

I don't know what would make you ill about getting more gov't meddling out of our lives. You want to join a union? Do it. Don't want to join one? Don't.

This is nothing more than a corporatist individualist profiteering and screw everyone else line of thought.

Sorry Rush...that is a nightmare scenario for the VAST majority of people.
The reality of human life is that we need co-operative methods to survive.

Even if these things you constantly make up were true, why do you expect we must take what you say as jeebus's gospel? Nothing in the LP platform would prevent people from cooperating, in fact, by getting more gov't force out of their lives, they would have greater opportunity and resources to cooperate with each other. For a recent example, what will be well over a TRILLION of their own dollars would remain in their pocket, not bailing out Wall Street investment banks.

The alternative offered by libertarians would have us preying upon each other for profit.

Why, 'cuz you sez so? I mean, do you go to work for free? Or do you prey on your employer for profit? Did the commune you live on give you your computer, or did some company prey on you, stick a gun in your face, and force you to buy it? Did some other company prey on your brother and force him to buy that motorcycle? Or did you two willingly purchase those things, because they made your life better?

You see, NO COMPANY can force you to do anything. It cannot prey on you because you can walk away. The gov't, on the hand, and as you have mentioned numerous times, can prey on you. It DOES prey on you. And often, you want take even more power and money from individuals to give it to the gov't. That's just nuts

Taking advantage of the weak, the less educated and both young and old would be vulnerable to the jackals.

Disguising corporatism as individual rights is disingenuous (spelling?) and I would hope that people can see through the facade.

Well, they'd have a MUCH better chance of doing so if you ever demonstrated the reasons why (corporatism is disguised individual rights, or insert your cause-du-jour here) is true. There's really no reason for them to take your word for it. Show them why. Demonstrate it, instead of just re-stating your self-serving conclusion.

That's far more effective in convincing your reader than just you saying so because it gives them reasons to accept your positions, not just your proclamations thereof.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The most intelligent candidate in the race is Ralph Nader.
The corporate media doesn't even take notice.

So what? Those companies do not exist to take notice of whatever you think they should take notice of.

If you want to get Ralph's Message out, do it. Buy airtime. Broadcast your own network. If you care so much, do it. Nobody else seems to care that much, because they aren't doing it, but they aren't stopping you. Get going.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Buy airtime. Broadcast your own network.

Like the long winded 'we can help you' advertisements that are on every TV and radio station four times per hour... ;)

(Welcome to Oceania, where all the ANNOYING people live.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

If you want to get Ralph's Message out, do it. Buy airtime. Broadcast your own network. If you care so much, do it. Nobody else seems to care that much, because they aren't doing it, but they aren't stopping you. Get going.

You're just such a happy volunteer to the cause that it makes me all warm and fuzzy.
Other than the part where you seem to think the corporate media has no role in presenting ALL of the news to the citizens.
Is it your position that only those who buy time in the news should receive any coverage and that since they bought the coverage they also control the story?

Where goes the news?

Into the deep pockets and away from the citizens.

What they refer to is survival of the richest, not the fittest.

One would think that with all their money, they could purchase some fitness...

But I suppose they are distracted by all the shiny new toys... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .