None of the Above '08!

[PLAYER57832]

Sheeple, yes! Lets not forget that it was Ross Perot that caused the third party challenge to raise even farther when the minimal poll support rating was raised from 5% to 15% after he was included in the Presidential debate in '92. I suppose I shouldn't say 'caused' as he was a legitimate challenge to the 2 party system.

On February 20, 1992, he appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and announced his intention to run as an independent if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, firm pro-choice stance, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, opposition to gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, his support of the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via "electronic town halls," he became a potential candidate and soon [/b]polled roughly even with the two major party candidates.[/b]

Not only is it possible, it actually almost happened.

OH ... MY MISTAKE ... I simply plain forgot that we had Ross Perot as president.
Yep, definitely a successful challenge ... oh and that party is now in the majority ... right??

It is people like PLAYER who will ensure that nothing changes. Every election the candidates talk about change. It only changes for the worse. Yet, we are still to keep voting for these people? PLAYER if "conviction" could be bought, I'd gladly send you the money needed for you to obtain it.

Try thinking about what would happen if you actually DID as I said ... instead of just posting here.

What I SAID was that you have to build support, THEN you make a third party challenge. It has been a very long time since anyone did that on the federal level. I am into effectiveness, not wasted guestures. Vote for whom you like ... but if you don't vote for one of the 2 LEGITIMATE candidates with a REAL chance to win ... then don't bother complaining about the one who IS elected.

Again, If everyone who had voted for Ralph Nadar HAD VOTED FOR Kerry instead, we would have had Gore as president... and a LOT would be differant.

[black elk speaks]

Sheeple, yes! Lets not forget that it was Ross Perot that caused the third party challenge to raise even farther when the minimal poll support rating was raised from 5% to 15% after he was included in the Presidential debate in '92. I suppose I shouldn't say 'caused' as he was a legitimate challenge to the 2 party system.

On February 20, 1992, he appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and announced his intention to run as an independent if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, firm pro-choice stance, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, opposition to gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, his support of the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via "electronic town halls," he became a potential candidate and soon [/b]polled roughly even with the two major party candidates.[/b]

Not only is it possible, it actually almost happened.

OH ... MY MISTAKE ... I simply plain forgot that we had Ross Perot as president.
Yep, definitely a successful challenge ... oh and that party is now in the majority ... right??

It is people like PLAYER who will ensure that nothing changes. Every election the candidates talk about change. It only changes for the worse. Yet, we are still to keep voting for these people? PLAYER if "conviction" could be bought, I'd gladly send you the money needed for you to obtain it.

Try thinking about what would happen if you actually DID as I said ... instead of just posting here.

What I SAID was that you have to build support, THEN you make a third party challenge. It has been a very long time since anyone did that on the federal level. I am into effectiveness, not wasted guestures. Vote for whom you like ... but if you don't vote for one of the 2 LEGITIMATE candidates with a REAL chance to win ... then don't bother complaining about the one who IS elected.

Again, If everyone who had voted for Ralph Nadar HAD VOTED FOR Kerry instead, we would have had Gore as president... and a LOT would be differant.

Perot had strong support. He chose to drop out of the race, claiming threats from the then Bush administration, though, it may well have been that he just didn't have the stomach for the battle he was going to have to fight in the white house.

I dare say that he might likely have won the presidency, had he stuck it out.

[PLAYER57832]

Well I suppose it is far easier to sit on a computer and bitch on a forum than to actually do anything constructive.

perhaps so, but I have already stated that I am educating myself on the libertarian party and looking to attend their meetings. Bit of a stretch from nothing, don't you thing?

DEFINITELY the answer, and here is a prime example:

I bought a house a while back. Having a little knowledge of how water works, I made sure that my house was well well drained. It had active, but aged French drains a completely dry basement, etc. It sat higher than neighboring property.

A couple of years later, the lot next door was sold. The owner put up a home. He is a former engineer, but was mysteriously naive about the effect of water. He consulted the borough manager, in charge of inspection. He wanted to elevate his property "just a bit" (12' at one point) so his wife did not have to use steps to get to his house. The manager said "no problem!" That is not our jurisdiction. Drainage was (never mind that the two are related, according to the manager, they are not). The Borough came to inspect and approved the drainage plan. Except they had this magic ability to do this without taking a survery or in any way verifying that the drains they approved were actually higher than neighboring property. Result? I now have a wet garage, a wet basement and a Borough manager who gets a nice chunk of change from MY taxes for the priviliage.

Another example? This same neighbor decided he did not like the staked boundaries. They "were wrong". Did he pay for a new survey? Nope .. no need, no need at all. He simply had his contractor pull up the stakes when he knew I would be gone for a couple of days. Then he proceeded to plant bushes on what had been my property. When I called to complain, know what I was told? A. its only bushes B. That same borough manager above, who approved a fence I installed has "no recollection" of any stakes or where they might be. C. If I did decide to take this guy to court, the only thing I could get is a refund of the cost of the stakes .. not the survey, the stakes ...at about $2.75 each!

DEFINITELY!!! Let's do away with government ... just let the free market do it all (did I forget to mention that this guy is a retired engineer who paid cash for HIS house, as opposed to my mortgage, etc.??) .. but that is, of course "irrelevant". If I were deserving, why I would have as much money as he....

[ Perot had strong support. He chose to drop out of the race, claiming threats from the then Bush administration, though, it may well have been that he just didn't have the stomach for the battle he was going to have to fight in the white house.

I dare say that he might likely have won the presidency, had he stuck it out.

That is most definitely not how I REMEMBER it! Ross never truly "pulled out". He was ousted off a few state ballots because he did not have enough votes and/or had not followed correct procedure. My grandmother voted for him. I ... did not.

[black elk speaks]

Well I suppose it is far easier to sit on a computer and bitch on a forum than to actually do anything constructive.

perhaps so, but I have already stated that I am educating myself on the libertarian party and looking to attend their meetings. Bit of a stretch from nothing, don't you thing?

DEFINITELY the answer, and here is a prime example:

I bought a house a while back. Having a little knowledge of how water works, I made sure that my house was well well drained. It had active, but aged French drains a completely dry basement, etc. It sat higher than neighboring property.

A couple of years later, the lot next door was sold. The owner put up a home. He is a former engineer, but was mysteriously naive about the effect of water. He consulted the borough manager, in charge of inspection. He wanted to elevate his property "just a bit" (12' at one point) so his wife did not have to use steps to get to his house. The manager said "no problem!" That is not our jurisdiction. Drainage was (never mind that the two are related, according to the manager, they are not). The Borough came to inspect and approved the drainage plan. Except they had this magic ability to do this without taking a survery or in any way verifying that the drains they approved were actually higher than neighboring property. Result? I now have a wet garage, a wet basement and a Borough manager who gets a nice chunk of change from MY taxes for the priviliage.

Another example? This same neighbor decided he did not like the staked boundaries. They "were wrong". Did he pay for a new survey? Nope .. no need, no need at all. He simply had his contractor pull up the stakes when he knew I would be gone for a couple of days. Then he proceeded to plant bushes on what had been my property. When I called to complain, know what I was told? A. its only bushes B. That same borough manager above, who approved a fence I installed has "no recollection" of any stakes or where they might be. C. If I did decide to take this guy to court, the only thing I could get is a refund of the cost of the stakes .. not the survey, the stakes ...at about $2.75 each!

DEFINITELY!!! Let's do away with government ... just let the free market do it all (did I forget to mention that this guy is a retired engineer who paid cash for HIS house, as opposed to my mortgage, etc.??) .. but that is, of course "irrelevant". If I were deserving, why I would have as much money as he....

[ Perot had strong support. He chose to drop out of the race, claiming threats from the then Bush administration, though, it may well have been that he just didn't have the stomach for the battle he was going to have to fight in the white house.

I dare say that he might likely have won the presidency, had he stuck it out.

That is most definitely not how I REMEMBER it! Ross never truly "pulled out". He was ousted off a few state ballots because he did not have enough votes and/or had not followed correct procedure. My grandmother voted for him. I ... did not.

I have no idea what you are rambling about. Our government has a legal branch to uphold the law and mediate over disputes between 2 parties. In a just legal system (ours is currently corrupt) you would have just cause to have the land re-surveyed, and should be due the cost of such a survey in the event that it was found that you were correct, especially if you could prove that the survey stakes were moved.

Admittedly, I do not remember the Perot bid for the Presidency, just that he had far greater support than was necessary to be in the debates, and that the bar was significantly raised in what was needed in order for a candidate to be included in the debates.

Just curious, what was the point of your neighbor analogy? That Government failed you there and that no government would have failed you even more?