cgriffin

While I can agree with a large part of your rant, I have to disagree here. Never, under any circumstances, huh? So, "libertarian" means "please walk on me"? No, clearly not. You are attempting to make a good point, but to show it's importance, take it too far and thus invalidate it.

I think the best I've managed was to suit up in medieval armor with 4000 other guys and attempt to beat the tar out of each other, although some of these posts are giving me wonderful ideas....

If you really want this info, you'll need to match the ballots. Despite the fact that most of the country doesn't realize it, there are more than two options.

Glock 23 with a shot shell chambered and a mag of Gold Dots. Ohio, like Florida, doesn't track a qual score.

Now if we could just get both of them to run away....

I'm sure that's exactly how the Democrats felt in the 1850's, and you're correct that both state approved parties feel that way now, but after an election? I don't think so. I think we'd see a massive scramble between the two to become more like whomever had finally showed them that they are not all-powerful.

Ohmigod! A poll that has more than two options, or two options and "Other/Undecided" Perhaps there is hope...

Well, no. Fortunately, he is not. I've read it, and I agree that Bush doesn't merit my vote. However, as Kerry is even less deserving of it, it will go to the only candidate that actually reads and understands the Constitution: Michael Badnarik.

AAAAARRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhh! None of the above! Why is it that all of these polls include either the two state approved parties or throw in Nader as a third option? I will be voting for the Constitution, i.e. Badnarik. I have this strange concept that our elected officials should know and understand our own system of government and the Constitution.

Oh, please, don't. They do accomplish some things, I will grant them, but they are (next to the polictical parties) one of the most two-faced organizations in the country. As long as you strongly support some Constitutional rights, but not others, it's a great group....

OK, then, with the same disclaimer, I will say this is the best indication I have ever seen that some liberals do understand economics. The only problem here is that you forgot the simplest, and as it happens best, solution. 3) SPEND LESS! If we could get either the Democrats or the Republicans to understand that, the entire country and all within it would be better off. Now, before you jump on me about education, defense or whatever your personal favorite is, think about all the stupid money wasted by our government. Why should I pay for foreign aid to NeverNeverLand, some couch potato in Bodunk, or a gold plated toilet seat for some Congressman?

As long as it's what I want them to do... There are two parts to "marriage": the religious part, and the secular part. The religious aspect is hands-off to the government, or rather clearly should be. I will wholeheartedly support the governments right to interfere in the secular aspect, as soon as anyone can argue for it without using religion as a basis. Hasn't yet happened, and never will. To the flamers, note that this was posted by a hetero man with children. Chris

I made my first tandem today, and immediately promptly paid for my first AFF, hopefully to be next Saturday. The first thing I did when I got home was to watch my video (you're all right about the terrorized faces...), but the second was to get online and find this place. I think I've got a lot of reading to do here.