RFV Revolution Raises $546 for MoveOn.org

This would've been put to the Libertarian Party or the Green Party, because it's Gen-X and Gen-Yers are the one that will make the demicans and republicrats a relic of the past, since they support only people that give them vast amount of money.

I don't like either of the shmucks (Bush and Kerry), and if you want to see a real debate, forward about 50 minutes into this:

http://63.223.15.84:80/freemarketnews/09-30-04-peo plesdebate.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf

Remember, vote for what you want - that's the only way you don't waste your vote.

In Response to Beav (#20628):

Thanks, try to enlighten people and I get marked "stupid" by some socialist no doubt. You know what- I'm willing to bet that you won't notice any change under Kerry. He won't even bring our troops back. Either way, you're getting 4 more years of the same shit with a different face.

No wonder I haven't posted here before, even though I've read this comic for 5-6 years. Because try to tell people they have options, you get shunned. Have fun being good sheep for the government.

In Response to Beav (#20629):

Actually I shunned you as soon as you said "demicans and republicrats". In my experience, anybody who uses those terms has nothing interesting to say -- it's almost like hearing slang from 1987.

In Response to Beav (#20628):

Remember, vote for what you want - that's the only way you don't waste your vote.

Bollocks. The difference between voting for someone with no chance of winning and not voting is invisible. Vote tactically - *that's* the only way you don't waste your vote.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to Beav (#20629):

Speaking as a Libertarian who is well aware my opinions aren't adequately represented in a two-party system... Deal with it. The US government is hardly a pinnacle of ideal representation. I have every intention of voting for the candidate who's not quite as bad (and doesn't maul the English language on a regular basis).

Incidentally, if you'd like equal representation and a chance to vote for someone who agrees with you, give Israel a try. If you can repress your bigoted views towards a socialist nation, they actually have a multi-party system set up that works pretty much like it's supposed to. Consider the Sephardic Jews and the recent (past few decades, anyway) upswing in votes for Shas.

In Response to albionsoft (#20633):

What tactics? You get the same crap from either major party. There are a few Republicans that come close to what I would like, but it definitely isn't anyone like Bush and especially not Cheney.

It's this defeatism that prevents better options (third parties) from succeeding.

In Response to sakuruth (#20635):

Heh, my "bigoted" views of socialism? The fact is socialism only works with a democracy or republic behind it to withstand the economic pressure of providing the whole populace with the same thing. (healthcare, bread lines, same difference)

Otherwise socialism + totalitarian government = communism...and we all know how successful *that* is. Unalienable human rights, appropriate representation, and a free market are the keys to a stable, peaceful society.

In Response to albionsoft (#20633):

The difference between voting for someone with no chance of winning and not voting is invisible.

On this point, I wholeheartedly disagree. Right now, the whole American goverment system is basically run on the principle of "Well, it could be worse." Rather than "How can we make it better?"

During the 2000 election, I firmly believe there was a huge section of the population that wanted neither Bush nor Gore. However, most voted for one or the other for fear of whichever they considered the greater of two evils getting into office.

It's only when we stop voting for 'someone who has a chance of winning' rather than our top choice, that any of us have an actual chance of winning.

In Response to Beav (#20640):

Look, as someone who personally is *very* closed minded, politically at least, I am in a position to tell you that you also are closed minded. And as I'm sure you'll understand, close minded + belligerence = bigotry.

You immediately assume that everyone who doesn't vote "third party" is doing so because they don't understand the issues, or because they are "sheep".

You immediately assume that your comments got modded as "stupid" because people don't understand your real point, or don't understand the real issues - rather than being open to the notion that your comments were downmodded for reasons that had nothing to do with the content of your statements - because of a capricious whim, because someone didn't like your nickname, or because someone felt put off by your phrasing.

Generally, you seem to believe that the world is a simple place, with easily solved problems - and are close minded to the complexities of every single situation there is.

Also, you seem to believe that a stable, peaceful society is a good thing to have. Sounds rather stagnant to me, actually.

In Response to zamphir (#20643):

Ok, I can see where you're coming from with regard to being closed-minded. I have simply reviewed all the options and libertarianism is the best real-world solution. It allows everybody to do their own thing.

Peace isn't stagnation unless you want it to be, with the flow of trade and and increased prosperity - our lives can get more interesting without people being killed. Well, at least Americans at first.

In Response to Beav (#20644):

Peace isn't stagnation unless you want it to be

If i had any mod privileges, that would have received "+1 Compelling".

I don't think you should be too insulted by a "-1" on your first comment. Almost everybody who makes comments around here will get a "-1" at some point-- usually several times during their first few conversations after de-lurking. But the "+1" mods are far more frequent, and if you stick around and continue to speak intelligently, you'll be sure to receive plenty of them.

Of course, i'm the last person on Earth who should be offering any suggestions about speaking intelligently. I have a habit of merely heckling when i don't really have anything insightful to offer. Nevertheless, you might be slightly encouraged by my example: i'm an idiot who went from Slave to Sentient in a matter of months, with very little up my sleeve except a few puns, bad jokes, and a view askew.

Oh, and i have mostly Libertarian ideals in my personal life, but i think it would be naïve to expect a grand shift in American politics towards my preferences, no matter how many times i (and other like-minded people) vote for somewhat Libertarian candidates. As people here have mentioned, "tactical" voting could be as useful-- or perhaps more useful-- in our current situation, as we only have a quasi- "representative democracy" in progress.

I feel quite honestly that it makes little or no difference how i vote-- because the system has been proven to be broken, and because the real power lies beyond the polity. By "broken", i mean that we have obvious situations in America where people do not get equal representation, and their votes are incorrectly disqualified, and the gerrymandering aggravates the whole situation.

By "real power lies beyond the polity", i am referring to "the silent coup" discussed near the end of this amusing article: Dirty Tricks, Inc. [conspiracydigest.com] and especially to the following paragraphs:

According to Washington Technology Magazine, this is the future. "The global market for outsourcing of government services is growing faster than outsourcing in any commercial segment, and is likely to more than double over the next five years, according to a new study by Accenture Ltd.," writes Patience Wait in her article "Government outsourcing grows fastest of all sectors" (March 4, 2002). In this outsourcing market, DynCorp has an estimated 5% market share, while Lockheed Martin leads the proverbial pack with 30%.

However there's a bigger question. When a handful of federal contracting firms with lucrative insider deals control federal accounting and computer systems, does US Government sovereignty even exist anymore?

In other words, if the US Government and its agencies do not control their proprietary accounting, payment and information systems, it becomes even questionable whether we have a sovereign government at all.

The outsourcing of these systems, then, in essence has become a silent coup d'etat by Corporate-Government Insiders.

I feel personally very discouraged by the way people in America, and most of the rest of the world, continue to live in social systems which are nothing more than traditional feudal hierarchies, simply dressed up with modern trimmings. These "trimmings" give a superficial appearance of diversity; but when you look at the ugly underneath, you will find mostly the same behavior in 2004 as you would have found in 1504. The only important difference is that an inhabitant of the year 1504 would have probably understood that they lived in a world run by plutocracy/theocracy/aristocracy; whereas many inhabitants of 2004 (especially Americans) have been successfully deceived (indoctrinated/educated/socialized) into imagining that we have some sort of "representative democracy".

Despite my cynical viewpoint, i am still going to vote anyway. I've decided that even though i don't...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to Beav (#20644):

Ok, I can see where you're coming from with regard to being closed-minded. I have simply reviewed all the options and libertarianism is the best real-world solution. It allows everybody to do their own thing.

But what if "my own thing" is "to live under a dictator", or "Be a dictator"? A libertarian society doesn't allow that, does it?

Peace isn't stagnation unless you want it to be

I didn't say "Peace" was stagnation. I said that a peaceful and stable society sounded stagnant to me.

In Response to zamphir (#20643):

Also? Using a term which applies to a demographic in order to denigrate is offensive. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the phenomenon of calling something unpleasant 'gay'. Calling someone who disagrees with you a socialist without any proof? Just as asinine.

Basically, I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

In Response to sakuruth (#20647):

Actually, I didn't not call anyone a socialist. I just mused out of frustration that the person who modded me stupid, did so because they obviously didn't like my views and usually those people are far-left.

And, besides that anyway - I have never been and never will be that politically correct. Heh, if it bothers you...mod me "stupid".

In Response to Beav (#20649):

"-1 Stupid". And i hereby voluntarily run the risk of my own "-1 Redundant" as i refer to portions of my previous comment about "continuing to speak intelligently". My tendency to be a hijacker is revealed as a discussion about civic potentials devolves into a snipe about grammar-- i.e., your double negative. Heckling Hijacker: it sounds like the name of a super-villain who would fight Adam West's Batman on the late '60s TV show.

Oh, and on the original topic, i donated money to MoveOn.org a few months ago, despite my opinion that Lockheed-Martin, Norhtrop-Grumman, Dyncorp, et cetera have literally billions more dollars of "persuasion" in this system, far outweighing my usefulness as a donor. It may ultimately prove quite futile, i would imagine, but it felt satisfying in a way. It was almost like taunting "Goliath" and passing stones to prospective "Davids", even though none of them may ever be actual giant-killers.

In Response to Beav (#20649):

Actually, I didn't not call anyone a socialist.

Precisely.

Also? As Zamphir pointed out (and you seem not to have noticed) they didn't necessarily mod you down because of your opinion. In fact, given my recollection of the past months' commentary, they probably did so because we've already gone over this topic to a mind-numbing degree.

And, besides that anyway - I have never been and never will be that politically correct. Heh, if it bothers you...mod me "stupid".

Politically incorrect is one thing. Offensive and hate-mongering is another. The latter annoys me because either you're not bright enough to have figured out why it's offensive or you're bigoted. I'm not especially tolerant of either.

In Response to Beav (#20639):

Face facts kids. Next year the president will be Kerry or it will be Bush. No one else has a chance of taking the whitehouse. If you ain't voting for one of those two, you're as well staying at home. No one's gonna notice the difference. No amount of naive crap's gonna change that.

Oh, by the way, I live in Scotland. We have four major parties, and a host of minor ones. I live with the system, and I (like everyone else in this country) know two facts you don't get. (1) Stopping the evil idiot getting in is more important than voting your conscience. Heck, I'm almost tempted to vote for Blair to keep Howard out, but at the moment I don't reckon anyone but Blair's got a chance at the next election anyway.(2) Finding *anyone* you can vote for who actually broadly agrees with your aggenda is pretty rare (unless you're a dyed in the wool "my grandaddy voted XXX so I do too" idiot). About 1/3 of my politics agrees with Labour (even under Blair), 1/3 with the Liberals (which means something different over here) and 1/3 with no party at all. Who should I vote for in your world?

See, democracy is about compromise. Its about making gradual improvements. Voting for a minor party at the presidential elections might make you feel all holier than thou, but its also a waste of time. A party takes decades to break through, by which time it needs to have convinced a major chunk of the population that it better matches their aggenda than any of the others. (Which means that none of the one trick ponies will ever manage it.) The kind of effort and compromise involved stops kiddies like you from bothering - much easier to bleat that "such and such is perfect, and if people weren't such sheep they'd succeed". Meanwhile, some of us live in the real world.

I feel like crap today, but I'm kinda enjoying this. I feel the need for an argument that doesn't descend into telstar histrionics. Thanks.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to stilllwaiting (#20641):

It's only when we stop voting for 'someone who has a chance of winning' rather than our top choice, that any of us have an actual chance of winning.

Too naive. Its only when *you* work to ensure that *your* top choice has a chance of winning that *you* can win. Next month's election is between Bush and Kerry. That's the choice - anything else is posturing in the background that NO ONE NOTICES. If they ain't your top choice (and why the hell would they be?) you're too late this time.

Democracy is about compromise. You can't get a majority to agree on anything else. Until you understand that, and work out which compromises you're willing to make to get the important issues through, you're just pissing in your wetsuit.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#20681):

Thank You.

In Response to albionsoft (#20681):

(1) Stopping the evil idiot getting in is more important than voting your conscience.
It may be to you, but it sure as hell isn't to me.
There is no fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry.
I'm not so quick to sell out what I believe in.

In Response to javaman83 (#20730):

There is no fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry.

Wait ... there isn't? I realise from where I stand they're both conservative middle-aged white men, but saying there is 'no fundamental difference' seems both simplistic and, bluntly, wrong.

On a broader note, I don't really understand the political idealism that seems to pervade the US. Most americans I've spoken to seem to genuinely believe that character is actually important, that candidates should uphold whatever claims they make during the campaign, and that it is possible to find a political ideology that geniunely aligns with your beliefs. It's very weird.

I'm with Albion on this one. If everyone voted only on conscience, you'd either end up with 300 million distinct political parties in the US alone, or most people would abstain altogether. Democracy is entirely about compromise, and to pretend otherwise is to be destined for life in a lunatic asylum. That might be your goal, mind you, I don't know.

In Response to tynic (#20732):

What! Are you trying to lecture Americans on democracy?!?!? But we're like really good at it and stuff. We are the kings of democracy! For shame!

(What? Oh, really? The presidential candidate's brother? Partisans in charge of voting procedures? Purging of what? Distraction by butterfly? Meaningless chad confusion? Isn't there a democracy czar or something?)

In Response to albionsoft (#20684):

Cranky cranky cranky.

I'd appriciate you not lumping me in with the Beav up there just because I happened to disagree with one of your points. Sure, next month it'll be Bush or Kerry. I never said change would come quick, but it does have to start somewhere.

Democracy is about compromise.

Yes, but you said it yourself 'Its about making gradual improvements'. Every lake starts as a puddle. It's when those puddles somehow join together they become noticible.

Change does not happen by going with the flow. Change happens when a minority becomes vocal enough that they convince, frighten, or confuse the majority. Yes, quietly sitting shuffling into your voting booth and writing in a vote for Nader will not overturn centuries of habbit, but it's a step. From there, people must organize, they must vocalize.

And I agree with you on many points. I will personally be voting for Kerry in November, because I think Bush is a liar. I think he is harming this country, and I think voting Kerry in is the only way to stop him. So, these are extenuating circumstances.

However, I stand by my earlier statements.

The difference between voting for someone with no chance of winning and not voting may be invisible in the present, but it is the only way to enact gradual change in the long term.
 
In 2000 Nader brought in almost 3,000,000 votes. Now, that's not much out of the 100,000,000 voters. But it's a pretty big accomplishment for someone with a relatively insignifigant budget when compared with the main parties, and not even being on half the ballots. It's a small step, one of many, but an important one.

So yes, for god's sake, vote Kerry in November. But do it and then start telling your friends to think of the future in 2008.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#20735):

You know, the whole problem might go away if the US simply introduced preferential voting.

But then we'd end up bickering about the preferences.

In Response to stilllwaiting (#20735):

Yes, quietly sitting shuffling into your voting booth and writing in a vote for Nader will not overturn centuries of habbit, but it's a step. From there, people must organize, they must vocalize.

That's almost my point - but voting for Nader does not lead to organising and vocalising. It leads to Nader standing again in four years time having done pretty much nothing in between. You need to do the organising and vocalising *first*.

In America, you would need to get a party elected to the local legislatures first, then to the senate. Until then, standing for president is pretty much an empty gesture. (Quick test as evidence : How many here could name the current presidential candidates? How about their party affiliation and basic manifesto points? Do you even know how many are standing? No looking it up - I know Dr Google knows.)

Cheers,
Graham