FoxNews: : As post-9/11 program grew, info on Americans, not terrorists was collected; price tag huge

[SnyderShrugged]

yeah we could vote for Ron Paul instead

our political system is rigged against going outside the 2 parties, and the third parties that do run are usually worse than the 2 major parties anyway

Unless you break that chicken and egg situation and bump up the third party vote by actually voting against stuff you disagree with.

No one has said anything about voting for Ron Paul except you. edit**removed for grumpiness!**

[Teller]

...the third parties that do run are usually worse than the 2 major parties anyway

There's some perspective.

[SnyderShrugged]

There's some perspective.

Not really, There are a few 3rd parties that would be much better on this subject and other related liberty based subjects than either of the big two. Its a cop out to say otherwise IMHO

[SkinsHokieFan]

Could you imagine how spooked the 2 major parties would be if Ron Paul got 20 percent in this election.

1) You'd seriously have to analyze our spending

2) You would have to take a real look at the Fed (which is already occuring)

3) You would have to take a serious look at our foreign policy

4) Dems may actually care about civil liberties again like they did pre Obama

5) R's may actually really care about spending if they ever come back in power

The 2 big parties would be forced to adjust, and this would be in a good way

[Teller]

Not really, There are a few 3rd parties that would be much better on this subject and other related liberty based subjects than either of the big two. Its a cop out to say otherwise IMHO

Key words, brother..."on this subject." Overall, I think Prosperity is right. Unfortunately.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Uhhhh, yes.

I should have said viable

Unless you break that chicken and egg situation and bump up the third party vote by actually voting against stuff you disagree with.

No one has said anything about voting for Ron Paul except you. edit**removed for grumpiness!**

you have to find a better alternative party candidate that can reach the masses, not the extremes.

This country is, and always will be, a 2 party country. It started as that and it has never wavered. What that means is that in order for an alternative party to be viable, they have to adopt some of those center leaning views which while the D and R move further and further to the extreme.

what eventually happens though, is that the alternative party becomes the mainstream party and that mainstream party starts adopting similar views as the prior party who they pushed out.

We have yet to see an alternative party do that in this country since the rise of the GOP in the 1800s

[DjTj]

Could you imagine how spooked the 2 major parties would be if Ron Paul got 20 percent in this election.

1) You'd seriously have to analyze our spending

2) You would have to take a real look at the Fed (which is already occuring)

3) You would have to take a serious look at our foreign policy

4) Dems may actually care about civil liberties again like they did pre Obama

5) R's may actually really care about spending if they ever come back in power

The 2 big parties would be forced to adjust, and this would be in a good way

He was around 20% in several Republican primaries, and it doesn't seem to have affected the Republican platform at all.

[SnyderShrugged]

I should have said viable

you have to find a better alternative party candidate that can reach the masses, not the extremes.

This country is, and always will be, a 2 party country. It started as that and it has never wavered. What that means is that in order for an alternative party to be viable, they have to adopt some of those center leaning views which while the D and R move further and further to the extreme.

what eventually happens though, is that the alternative party becomes the mainstream party and that mainstream party starts adopting similar views as the prior party who they pushed out.

We have yet to see an alternative party do that in this country since the rise of the GOP in the 1800s

With that mindset, you really shouldn't ever complain about the bad stuff that comes out of the two parties. You have options, but you simply choose personally not to exercise them because you are afraid of being on the "losing" side, yet never realize voting for the beauty contest instead of your beliefs will always result in a loss. Lesser of evils is always still evil

[JimboDaMan]

Uhhhh, yes.

No, they don't. I don't care who you vote for, you will be voting for somebody who wants to do something you don't like. Not possible to find somebody in 100% agreement with your every position. Vote third party if you find someone closer to your liking, but you will still be making some compromises.

[SnyderShrugged]

No, they don't. I don't care who you vote for, you will be voting for somebody who wants to do something you don't like. Not possible to find somebody in 100% agreement with your every position. Vote third party if you find someone closer to your liking, but you will still be making some compromises.

absolutely, its all about how you set your priorities. Though dont complain when you have set your priorities on things like this lower and the result is their continued practice.

[JimboDaMan]

absolutely, its all about how you set your priorities. Though dont complain when you have set your priorities on things like this lower and the result is their continued practice.

But you will still be voting "evil" with your alternative choice. Lesser evil, possibly, but evil nonetheless.

Anyway, at this stage of the game we're more likely to get some near-term positive results by pressuring the winner between Romney and Obama.

[SnyderShrugged]

But you will still be voting "evil" with your alternative choice. Lesser evil, possibly, but evil nonetheless.

Not if what you have prioritized lower is not personally defined as evil. I would define the topic of this thread as evil, so thus I wont vote for anyone that supports it.

[Larry]

This is basically what's going on now right?

In general, the government can violate the 4th amendment as much it wants. The only consequence they have to deal with is not being able to use evidence gathered because of the violation in court.

Well, not quite.

As I understand it, yes, they can use that information.

They can use it to trigger a more traditional investigation, for example.

Heck, as I understand it, they can use evidence from somebody who's been tortured. The claim is that well, if they stop torturing him, and he keeps telling the same story, then it's admissible.

And from what I understand, the government's position is that once data is collected legally (as in "it's legal for the NSA to do this"), then they can retain it forever, and use it for whatever purpose they want.

That's how we get to things like the claim that PATRIOT has never been used in a courtroom against an accused terrorist, but it's been used hundreds of times against accused drug dealers.

[SkinsHokieFan]

How in any way do you believe that the winner of the 2 will do anything different?

Romney might not kill an American citizen overseas without trial :whoknows:

[SnyderShrugged]

But you will still be voting "evil" with your alternative choice. Lesser evil, possibly, but evil nonetheless.

Anyway, at this stage of the game we're more likely to get some near-term positive results by pressuring the winner between Romney and Obama.

How in any way do you believe that the winner of the 2 will do anything different?

[SkinsHokieFan]

How in any way do you believe that the winner of the 2 will do anything different?

Romney might not kill an American citizen overseas without trial :whoknows:

[SnyderShrugged]

Romney might not kill an American citizen overseas without trial :whoknows:

I have my doubts on that one.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I have my doubts on that one.

So do I. I think a Romney administration will triple down on the Obama drone policy

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

With that mindset, you really shouldn't ever complain about the bad stuff that comes out of the two parties. You have options, but you simply choose personally not to exercise them because you are afraid of being on the "losing" side, yet never realize voting for the beauty contest instead of your beliefs will always result in a loss. Lesser of evils is always still evil

its not a mindset, its American history. Go throughout American history and find a period where a 3rd party was viable. It has nothing to do with wanting one or the other, and it has everything to do with how Americans have always chosen its politicians.

[SnyderShrugged]

its not a mindset, its American history. Go throughout American history and find a period where a 3rd party was viable. It has nothing to do with wanting one or the other, and it has everything to do with how Americans have always chosen its politicians.

That doesnt change the simple fact that its your personal choice who to vote for and if you only limit your choices to two parties when there are others who espouse your views better, then live with your choice and dont complain about what your choices do. You could easily vote for someone who wouldnt have done it.

[DjTj]

So do I. I think a Romney administration will triple down on the Obama drone policy

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

That doesnt change the simple fact that its your personal choice who to vote for and if you only limit your choices to two parties when there are others who espouse your views better, then live with your choice and dont complain about what your choices do. You could easily vote for someone who wouldnt have done it.

and then what? they wont be elected and you get upset as the president and congress does anyway.

ionno, my real point is how its hard for an alternative party to make headway in America, and how messed up this country is politically and in governance.

[SnyderShrugged]

and then what? they wont be elected and you get upset as the president and congress does anyway.

ionno, my real point is how its hard for an alternative party to make headway in America, and how messed up this country is politically and in governance.

I 100% concur with your "real point", where I have concern is your apparent giving up and not voting your beliefs simply because you see it as futile (the circumstance that is so wide spread that we end up with more of the same election after election after election)

[JimboDaMan]

How in any way do you believe that the winner of the 2 will do anything different?

At this point I have little faith either will. But I know for a fact that Gary Johnson and Ron Paul will do **** all about it because in January neither of them will have that power.

[DjTj]

I 100% concur with your "real point", where I have concern is your apparent giving up and not voting your beliefs simply because you see it as futile (the circumstance that is so wide spread that we end up with more of the same election after election after election)

I think that voting third party in certain elections can change things, and Ross Perot's candidacy probably had a real effect in pushing towards balanced budgets in the 90s. But for most elections, it really doesn't matter very much, and the best way to advocate for particular issues is through the primaries and the platform of a major party.

I think that Ron Paul and the Paul campaign understood this, and worked very hard to affect the Republican campaign this year. Unfortunately, that wasn't particularly successful either, but they were certainly much closer to effecting real change than we will see in the general election with Gary Johnson.