|
mabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
|
Presidentials on drugs
#2928515 - 07/26/04 12:12 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm voting for Nader. His stand on drugs is clear.
Quote:
An End to the War on Drugs ? Responsible & Rehabilitation Focused Drug Policy The drug war has failed ? we spend nearly $50 billion annually on the drug war and problems related to drug abuse continue to worsen. We need to acknowledge that drug abuse is a health problem with social and economic consequences. Therefore, the solutions are ? public health, social services and economic development and tender supportive time with addicts in our depersonalized society. Law enforcement should be at the edges of drug control not at the center. It is time to bring some illegal drugs within the law by regulating, taxing and controlling them . Ending the drug war will dramatically reduce street crime, violence and homicides related to underground drug dealing.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=21
What is your canidates stand?
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2928553 - 07/26/04 12:24 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I have always had a soft spot for Nader. He has some ideas that I like and some that I don't. I wish one of the major parties would pick up on some of his points and gleen the best from his platform.
He has a 12 point process to cut down on corporate crime: http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=31
4) Democratize Corporate Governance: Shareholders should be granted the right to democratically nominate and elect the corporate board of directors by opening up proxy access to minority shareholders and introducing cumulative voting and competitive elections. Shareholders should be given the power to approve all major business decisions, including top executive compensation. Shareholders should be treated as the owners of the corporation ? since, in fact, that is what they are.
I think the man has some interesting and fresh ideas. I think he would be a wonderful person to be appointed to either a Republican or Democratic administration in an effort to combat corporate malfeasance.
The fresh thing about him is that he is his own man. He will never be bought off by special interests. He is above reproach in that respect, and I admire that.
I won't vote for him but I respect him.
-------------------- Tastes just like chicken
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2928594 - 07/26/04 12:36 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party(see my signature) shares views on the War on Drugs with Ralph Nader. He, however, would not grow the size of government as Ralph would(Ralph is more of a socialist than even Kerry...), but would instead work tirelessly to shrink it back to it's constitutional limits. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about Micahel.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2928612 - 07/26/04 12:42 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The time to vote for the person closest to your ideas was during the primaries. Mabus--you should have concentrated on Kucinich (also against the WOD) during the primaries. Politics is largely about compromise, in the end, votes come down to yes/no. Now its time to vote 'no' on bush which is only done by voting 'yes' on Kerry.
|
mabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Ancalagon]
#2928615 - 07/26/04 12:43 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Is Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party a fellow graduate of Harvard?
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2928640 - 07/26/04 12:50 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Nope, what's your point?
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Well put: [Re: mabus]
#2928644 - 07/26/04 12:51 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
[From Kucinich.us FAQ] Why aren't you running as a Green Party candidate? Will the Greens support you?
While I support much of the Green Party program, I am a Democrat. I am in the party to which millions of working people, minorities, environmentalists, and people who want a just America owe their loyalty. I want to build a Democratic Party that deserves the loyalty of these groups. I am running not just to promote important ideas, but to use the progressive agenda to defeat George Bush for President in November 2004. Many Greens and Nader 2000 voters are supporting my candidacy, and Ralph has praised our campaign. We are gaining support from new voters, disgruntled voters, and other "3rd-party" voters. Although I'm a Democrat, I firmly support the rights of parties other than the Democrats and Republicans to freely organize, have ballot access, and take part in debates. I support Instant Runoff Voting and other election reforms that will open up our democracy to other parties and groups. I welcome the support of Greens, while respecting their right to protect their party's interests and integrity. Still, I think it's critical we defeat Bush and his right-wing agenda in 2004, and the Democratic Party is the vehicle for that.
|
mabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
|
Re: Well put: [Re: Tao]
#2928683 - 07/26/04 01:06 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Defeat Bush. Is that the bold new message I'm to waste my time and vote on. The hype about "Anyone But Bush" slogan is just that, a slogan. Reality is I have to get in my elec. solar car and fight gaseous traffic exhausts,police state road blocks searching for "terrorists... and my pot", pay money to find a place to park, and then fight the election lines. I'm voting for the guy who stands for what I do, NADER.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Well put: [Re: mabus]
#2928698 - 07/26/04 01:09 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Kerry and Bush are MUCH too similar on the policy issues that matter to even try to peddle the 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
mabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
|
|
So true Ancalagon, Its really a race between Nader and the Libertarian Party. I'm sure there will be a big surprise.
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Well put: [Re: mabus]
#2928944 - 07/26/04 02:33 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kerry and Bush are MUCH too similar on the policy issues that matter to even try to peddle the 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.
saying that a lot of times doesn't make it true.
stem cell research not starting wars and nation-building working with the UN rather than undermining it health care enforcing environmental standards not increasing spending while cutting tax not extending the patriot act
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!


Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,267
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2928961 - 07/26/04 02:36 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You're so right Mabus. Unfortunately some states can not afford to vote for Nader. Swing states can not afford to vote for Nader.
I think Nader people need to come at the voters differently. Nader should only campain in states that traditionally vote Democrat.
What do you say Mabus? Let's make a list of states who can safely vote Nader in 2004.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Learyfan]
#2929098 - 07/26/04 03:10 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
Twirling
Barred Spiral


Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2929172 - 07/26/04 03:27 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I really like Nader & Kucinich, but to be honest, I really don't see how Nader can win. To be honest, I feel very defeated about politics, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be apathtic about it either. That always guarentees a defeat.
Come November, I'm almost certainly going to vote Kerry. I'd love to vote Nader, but I just don't see it as realisitc.
-------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Tao]
#2929174 - 07/26/04 03:28 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said: MA, NY, CA, IL, VT, R.I., CT, MD
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/
I've asked this before but I'll ask it again. What if George does win, and in 2008 Jeb Bush is the Republican Nominee? Will you try to push the same bullshit on those who desire to vote for a candidate who they truly respect as opposed to the lesser of two evils? 'JUST THIS ONE LAST ELECTION CYCLE VOTE DEMOCRAT...NEXT TIME YOU CAN VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT...NEXT TIME...' Vote for the lesser of two evils and even if your candidate wins you'll end up with evil. Vote for who YOU want! The lesser of two evils argument is a disgrace to all this country was supposed to stand for.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Well put: [Re: Tao]
#2929185 - 07/26/04 03:30 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
stem cell research: not the governments business and it will happen regardless of US policy; see multi-national corporations. We just won't financially profit from it. Is that your concern?
Wars and nation building: Kerry voted yes in both cases and was privy to all relevant info (i.e. for him, what the polls said). I have no problem with either our action in Iraq or Afghanistan. Could things have been done better? Of course, as always with hindsight. Could we reasonably have expected better? I think it has been fabulously successful.
Work with the UN: Human Rights Commitee, Disarmament Commitee, Oil for Food Scandal. You must be insane to think this is anything but an utterly corrupt group. It's a good thing that it doesn't have the nerve to ever act decisively (see Iraq 1)
Health care: Why should I pay for your health insurance or care or whatever? I, I mean, who works 40 to 50 hrs a week at a job I spent 20+ years to get good at so I could better my and my family's situation while you did......what????? Fuck up????? Just suck and breed????? If the government pays that means I pay. L'etat c'est moi.
Enforce environmental standards: Where exactly does Kerry stand on wind farms off the Massachusetts coast? We know where his owner stands on them.
Not increasing spending......: Bush, not having to cave in to special interests, i.e. old fucks on the dole, is far more likely to decrease spending than the most Liberal Senator. Or do you think cutting taxes is a bad thing? Having a deficit makes legislators cut the budget unless they can raise taxes. I myself would rather have a deficit than higher taxes.
The Patriot Act has impacted my life in no fashion. And oh by the way Kerry voted for it
--------------------
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!


Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,267
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Ancalagon]
#2929269 - 07/26/04 03:49 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
Quote:
TaoTeChing said: MA, NY, CA, IL, VT, R.I., CT, MD
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/
I've asked this before but I'll ask it again. What if George does win, and in 2008 Jeb Bush is the Republican Nominee? Will you try to push the same bullshit on those who desire to vote for a candidate who they truly respect as opposed to the lesser of two evils? 'JUST THIS ONE LAST ELECTION CYCLE VOTE DEMOCRAT...NEXT TIME YOU CAN VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT...NEXT TIME...' Vote for the lesser of two evils and even if your candidate wins you'll end up with evil. Vote for who YOU want! The lesser of two evils argument is a disgrace to all this country was supposed to stand for.
You're SO right Ancalagon.
From the first day Nader began being blamed for Bush being elected i've thought about this. Will we EVER be able to vote 3rd party again? I don't think any Republican will ever be a good choice. So am I doomed to vote Democrat for the rest of my life???
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Ancalagon]
#2929345 - 07/26/04 04:22 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
again, you vote for who you want in the primaries, if enough people don't agree with you, then your endeavors are fruitless if you keep insisting--until the next election cycle, when you campaign again during the primaries for which candidate best represents you. Kerry was a compromise between Lieberman and Kucinich. well im not continuing this discussion any further, it sounds like you are too caught up in ideals instead of understanding what politics is really about, accepting setbacks and compromises and adapting.
www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com
Sidenote: I can understand voting for badnarik instead of bush a lot more than i can understand voting for nader instead of kerry.
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Ancalagon]
#2929691 - 07/26/04 06:22 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
I've asked this before but I'll ask it again. What if George does win, and in 2008 Jeb Bush is the Republican Nominee? Will you try to push the same bullshit on those who desire to vote for a candidate who they truly respect as opposed to the lesser of two evils? 'JUST THIS ONE LAST ELECTION CYCLE VOTE DEMOCRAT...NEXT TIME YOU CAN VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT...NEXT TIME...' Vote for the lesser of two evils and even if your candidate wins you'll end up with evil. Vote for who YOU want! The lesser of two evils argument is a disgrace to all this country was supposed to stand for.
hahahahaha. you really crack me up, dude. I mean, i agree with what you're saying and all, but do you really think that the 300 million brainwashed morons in this country are ever going to see shit that way? Your movement's unpopularity is a testament to its own incorrect assumptions about human nature.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: DoctorJ]
#2929759 - 07/26/04 06:48 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Your movement's unpopularity is a testament to its own incorrect assumptions about human nature.
I would say it's lack of popularity(not UNpopularity...where is a poll showing people disagree with the libertarian message) is more due to its absence of media coverage than anything else. That is irrelevant to this thread however. Feel free to bump the thread of yours in which this was discussed(or not discussed) from a while ago.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!


Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,267
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: DoctorJ]
#2929811 - 07/26/04 07:08 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I would say most ideas discussed here are unpopular to the masses.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
mabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Learyfan]
#2929962 - 07/26/04 07:59 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
True Mr.LearyFan, however I am really curious about the stand each party has on the "war on drugs" issue. Lets post your partys stand!
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!


Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,267
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2930005 - 07/26/04 08:10 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I don't really have a party but if I did it would be GREEN.
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
mabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: Learyfan]
#2930051 - 07/26/04 08:20 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
What I'm really interested in is the other party's stand on the "war on drugs".
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2931917 - 07/27/04 09:34 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The Libertarian Party asks: SHOULD WE RE-LEGALIZE DRUGS?
Should We Re-Legalize Drugs?
Libertarians, like most Americans, demand to be safe at home and on the streets. Libertarians would like all Americans to be healthy and free of drug dependence. But drug laws don't help, they make things worse.
The professional politicians scramble to make names for themselves as tough anti-drug warriors, while the experts agree that the "war on drugs" has been lost, and could never be won. The tragic victims of that war are your personal liberty and its companion, responsibility. It's time to consider the re-legalization of drugs. The Lessons of Prohibition
In the 1920's, alcohol was made illegal by Prohibition. The result: Organized Crime. Criminals jumped at the chance to supply the demand for liquor. The streets became battlegrounds. The criminals bought off law enforcement and judges. Adulterated booze blinded and killed people. Civil rights were trampled in the hopeless attempt to keep people from drinking.
When the American people saw what Prohibition was doing to them, they supported its repeal. When they succeeded, most states legalized liquor and the criminal gangs were out of the liquor business.
Today's war on drugs is a re-run of Prohibition. Approximately 40 million Americans are occasional, peaceful users of some illegal drug who are no threat to anyone. They are not going to stop. The laws don't, and can't, stop drug use. Organized Crime Profits
Whenever there is a great demand for a product and government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand. The price of the product rises dramatically and the opportunity for huge profits is obvious. The criminal gangs love the situation, making millions. They kill other drug dealers, along with innocent people caught in the crossfire, to protect their territory. They corrupt police and courts. Pushers sell adulterated dope and experimental drugs, causing injury and death. And because drugs are illegal, their victims have no recourse. Crime Increases
Half the cost of law enforcement and prisons is squandered on drug related crime. Of all drug users, a relative few are addicts who commit crimes daily to supply artificially expensive habits. They are the robbers, car thieves and burglars who make our homes and streets unsafe. An American Police State
Civil liberties suffer. We are all "suspects", subject to random urine tests, highway check points and spying into our personal finances. Your property can be seized without trial, if the police merely claim you got it with drug profits. Doing business with cash makes you a suspect. America is becoming a police state because of the war on drugs. America Can Handle Legal Drugs
Today's illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana. Drugs were inexpensive; crime was low. Most users handled their drug of choice and lived normal, productive lives. Addicts out of control were a tiny minority.
The first laws prohibiting drugs were racist in origin -- to prevent Chinese laborers from using opium and to prevent blacks and Hispanics from using cocaine and marijuana. That was unjust and unfair, just as it is unjust and unfair to make criminals of peaceful drug users today.
Some Americans will always use alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or other drugs. Most are not addicts, they are social drinkers or occasional users. Legal drugs would be inexpensive, so even addicts could support their habits with honest work, rather than by crime. Organized crime would be deprived of its profits. The police could return to protecting us from real criminals; and there would be room enough in existing prisons for them. Try Personal Responsibility
It's time to re-legalize drugs and let people take responsibility for themselves. Drug abuse is a tragedy and a sickness. Criminal laws only drive the problem underground and put money in the pockets of the criminal class. With drugs legal, compassionate people could do more to educate and rehabilitate drug users who seek help. Drugs should be legal. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions.
From the Mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke, to conservative writer and TV personality, William F. Buckley, Jr., leading Americans are now calling for repeal of America's repressive and ineffective drug laws. The Libertarian Party urges you to join in this effort to make our streets safer and our liberties more secure.
http://www.lp.org/issues/relegalize.html
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Presidentials on drugs [Re: mabus]
#2931936 - 07/27/04 09:40 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"On a fundamental level, Libertarians believe that it is the unalienable and constitutional right of individuals to medicate themselves and choose for themselves what to put into their bodies, as long as they live up to the consequences of their actions. The federal government has no proper say in the matter, and state governments violate the rights of the people in their own attempts to enforce morality. The decision to ingest, smoke or consume any drug should be up to the individual, under the advice of his or her physician, when appropriate. Locking people up for trying to relieve their pain is cruel and unusual punishment for an act that hurts no one.
The Drug War has led to some of the worst violations of the constitutional liberties of Americans, as well as to the worst wave of violent crime in American history since Alcohol Prohibition. It has been used to rationalize unlawful searches and seizures, corruption of the court system, no-knock raids, racial profiling, and "civil asset forfeiture"?a policy whereby government officials can confiscate private property without even charging anyone with a crime. The War on Drugs, more than anything else, has served as a means of destroying the Bill of Rights. It has also led to excessive taxes and spending, costing more than 40 billion dollars a year to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent drug offenders.
Drug Prohibition has caused gang warfare and other violent crime by raising the prices of drugs so much that vicious criminals enter the market to make astronomical profits, and addicts rob and steal to get money to pay the inflated prices for their drugs. On average, drug prisoners spend more time in federal prison than rapists, who often get out on early release because of the over-crowding in prison caused by the Drug War. While violent criminals can usually have their sentences reduced, drug offenders are subject to "mandatory minimums," which strip away judicial discretion and force judges to put users and dealers in prison for decades. This has to stop.
The Drug War also has funded terrorists; providing them with opportunities for enormous profits, and even by giving foreign aid to such regimes as the Taliban as long as they promised to have "tough drug" policies.
The Drug War does not curb demand, it barely reduces supply, however it makes America much more dangerous and much less free.
A Libertarian president would order federal officials to cease and desist in harassing medical marijuana patients and would block federal spending on the War on Drugs. Nonviolent drug offenders would be released from federal prison, and each state would choose its own drug policy, just as each chose its own alcohol policy when alcohol Prohibition was repealed. Libertarians would hope and expect most states to come around and severely reform their policies to make them more humane and less at odds with the Constitution and the American way of life. "
badnarik on the drug war
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:  Kerry and Bush are MUCH too similar on the policy issues that matter to even try to peddle the 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.
No, they both will take away people's freedoms, but in different areas. Anyway, regarding the "lesser of two evils" strategy, I think it depends on where you live. If I lived in a swing state, I would definitely vote for Kerry, but since I don't, I'm comfortable voting for Michael Badnarik.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
|