It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by intrepid
I wouldn't debate it, very nicely said. But I wonder how long he would live if he made it to the presidency. Can't debate a bullet either.
Originally posted by Odd
Democratic and Republican ideals can't stand up to what Badnarik wants to do.
Saying that John Kerry or George W. Bush knows better than all of the Founding Fathers put together is not only wrong, it's offensive.
Originally posted by DeltaChaos
I wouldn't debate the fact that it was some nice wordplay, but that's what it was for the most part.
A lot of the people that vote vote purely on job security. A lot of people in the defense industry will be voting for Bush this year just because they know they'll get their Christmas bonuses for the next four years.
I agree with the man's sentiment, and I agree with his impetus absolutely. We really should be voting for the realization of our rights foremost, or we will lose that which has made us able to be so slothful and shallow as to vote only for a continued money stream.
Originally posted by DeltaChaos
TL,
Good examples. I think just about everybody is voting for one wrong reason or another.
Originally posted by Esoterica
I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils as much as the next guy. However, if you vote third party, you are going to be taking a vote away from one of the two major candidates.
Right now, you can't get in the lifeboat. What you can choose is who gets to get in before you. Voting for the lesser of two evils allows you to decide how much damage is done, and to which areas of the nation.
It's a terrible time to be of voting age, but I'm beyond idealism. That harsh reality of the world dictates that.
Originally posted by specialasianX
Fiscal issue?