Welcome Nader, Baldwin, Barr and McKinney Supporters!!
Posted by shelly on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 18:58
in
It's great to have you on board - thanks so much for joining us!! BTM has attracted a tremendously intelligent, passionate liberty-minded community, and we're thrilled that you're a part of it!
I have a feeling you guys are going to bring some interesting new perspectives to our forums... Please tell your friends about BreakTheMatrix/ThirdPartyTicket and help us spread the word about our Third Party options this election year.
The latest ThirdPartyTicket.com updates:
We're up to 4918 pledges on thirdpartyticket.com (as of 9:25 am EST Sunday).
Submit and VOTE for your Debate Questions Here
Nader Supporters Check-In Thread (posted by novanity)
Stay tuned for further updates...
Shelly
Paste this code into your site to promote this story!
- shelly's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 721 reads
I am a long time Democrat (voted for McGovern) who has had enough. Found out about Break the Matrix via Glenn Greenwald.
I am extremely interested in:
1) Restoring the constitution
2) Radically changing our country's default foreign policy views.
3) Ending the war on drugs
4) Ending the hold that Aipac has on our foreign policy
I could care less about things like privatizing education and the post office as well as hypostatizing 'Freedom' or 'liberty'.
I am interested in what people like me and those who support Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr have in common. In my view, there is a lot there on issues that are absolutely fundamental.
I am really interested in Breaking the Matrix!
I would rather vote for what I want and lose, than vote for what I don't want and win.
Eugene Debs
Welcome to BTM... I'm so glad you've joined- it looks like we have alot in common. :)
Talk soon!
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
I am really excited for this. It should be cool.
You are here because you care about liberty. You want the government out of yor bedroom and back yard and basement hydroponic lab. You want them off your phone lines and e-mail accounts. You want them out of the back pockets of bankers and financeirs. You want them out of Iraq and anywhere else that they are waging wars that have nothing to do with defending America. So far, so good. I agree with you completely.
And yet... You still want the government in charge of health care, education, job creation, pay equity, retirement benefits, regulating the market, regulating food and the environment, things that are much more likely to have an impact on your daily life. The government already has its hands all over everything we do, and yet you want to put them in charge of even more.
I don't want more of that kind of interference; I want less of it. I want none of it, in fact. That is what liberty means to me.
What does liberty mean to you?
No word from Barr or McKinney right. I see nothing on Barr site announcing participation.
that with the various positions/philosophies that the *third party* candidates espouse, there is one unifying position that near all of them take - -
It has to do with a plant. And arrests for planting, growing, buying or possessing, smoking and eating or medicating with said plant.
There will be times when our philosophies clash. But regardless of what happens, we will still have the ol' fall back position to agree on. So for all the new members, please know that though you may be frustrated with some of the political views of other members, there is always the solace and peace that comes with joining the Green Team.
We don't bite (hard). We accept your right to have your own view and to speak your own mind. But you had better be able to back it up with sound argument. Welcome all of you. Together, maybe we really can kick the two party system square in the nads. And if not, at least maybe we can legalize cannabis so we can watch the circus show that is D.C. pleasantly amused and our sisters and brothers who are sick and dying will not fear arrest from an overbearing tyrannical police state.
(note: opinions expressed herein are those of myself and nobody else)
Yes, windy, we all agree on the violation of natural rights that prohibiton of drugs represents, as a prohibition of gay marriage also represents.
I believe that the logic behind this is that no voluntary act of an individual or consentual act between two individuals, which does not violate the rights of anyone else, can justly be prohibited by government.
Somehow, this is clear when it comes to "personal liberty" but not to "economic liberty." Would you agree that anti-trust laws constitute the exact same violation of rights as a law against gay marriage?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
THe shares of a corporation or a non-coporate business is nothing more than property. If the owner of the property wishes to sell it to someone else, even if they are the last two competitors, what right does government have to interfere in this voluntary exchange of property by two individuals or groups?
Although the above is my main point, the natural monopoly (results without government intervention) never raises price beyond what competition - either active or potential - could offer, or it loses its monopoly. Only the government-granted monopoly arbitrarily sets prices, as they have no worry of competition. T. Roosevelt's "progressivism" was as poorly rooted in economics as the social reformers who destroyed the free market. It is no surprise that the moronic McCain holds him up as a hero.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
about the limits of government intervention and the law of unintended consequences. A law passed for one purpose gets applied in a different context under entirely different circumstances than which spurred the law in the first place. So when the govt intervenes to break up j.p. morgan, dupont or some rockefeller corporation or whatever decades ago, we get stuff you are talking bout years later.
To put my point different, i think there is a difference between so-called civil liberties (i.e, the right to be let alone) and the rights of corporations and its shareholders, espcially when those companies are "public." Yes, people's property rights are implicated through the corporate process of ownership of shares, etc... but its just a different category of right involved. This isn't to say that one is more of a right than another or should be protected more or in a different way - its just my focus is on the civil/personal liberty side not the economic side. Corporations are a creature of various statutes and government consent. Whereas civil liberties are direct restraints upon government.
"If you don't like my fire, then don't come around. Cuz i am goona burn one down." B. Harper
Anti-trust laws, as far as I understand them (and plz correct me if i am wrong as this is not an area i know much about other than in passing) were meant to break up the so-called monopolies of our great grandfathers' generation. The idea being that monopolies, if they were true monopolies and had cornered a specific market completely, would result in prices not being set by the free market but by the arbitrary whim of whoever owned/controlled the monopoly. It is of course assumed if this were to happen, that prices would be inflated by the monopolist since they were portrayed as the very definition of "greed."
Now, instead of private monopolies, ironically it seems we have government monopolies in certain sectors of the economy. Energy and utilities come to mind.
It seems fundamentally unfair to have as law a prohibition on monopolies, but, the government itself engaging in monopolies. I have no confidence that the government would see to it that their monopolies behave better than a private company would behave acting in its own long term best interest.
I realize that the thrust of anti-trust laws are at least theoretically meant to ensure competition - but since it is enforced ad hoc in courts - where powerful law firms and actors can essentially game the system - its all rather fruitless.
Perhaps an argument can be made that the anti-trust laws do nothing but ensure excessive litigation costs for businesses- and dont actually accomplish anything. I was recently shopping for a webcam that would be compatible with both a Mac and PC. Almost everything i came across at the usual stores (best buy, circuit city, etc...) was Windows compatible only. I do not know if this is because Microsoft windows operating platform is just that popular - or - if its because the manufacturers of webcams have a hard time making a cam that is compatible with windows and macs at the same time and just chose to conform to windows. Either way, it was kinda annoying :) I realize i didnt answer your question - but its not because i dont want to take a position, its just i dont have enough information to make up my own mind.
I could see an argument that there is a difference between purely private behavior - such as smoking marijuana in one's own home or marrying a person of the same sex - and operating a business which caters to the general public. Government should have little to no interest in the former, i dont know if i can say the same thing as to the latter. But then again, i am not as informed on the subject as many others.
(Ed. Tom, its me windycityatty - i made a new profile so i could have a different photo when i made comments)
"If you don't like my fire, then don't come around. Cuz i am goona burn one down." B. Harper
You are always a breath of fresh air.
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
This is for McCain:
Will you, please, stop saying that Obama is the most "liberal" senator in Congress; since he has voted for "Free Trade" legislation, and with Bush on other legislation, as well? ( I have the voting records, and he has not voted in a progressive manner.)
I cannot wait to hear the debate between the REAL Candidates that are not corporate owned and special interests patsies!!!
Has Bob Barr, Baldwin or McKinney agreed to promote and attend this. I think Trevor is the greatest figure to come from the Ron Paul movement.
BTM is on the verge of hitting it big. If Barr would have got into the national debate you guys would have took off. The next best thing is to try to bring in the millions who are tired of the 2 parties. No matter what the polls say over 10% are going to vote for someone else in pure protest.
Great strong voices from all sides coming together for common causes!!
Freedom-minded people are starting to coalesce into one massive front. In the words of Ross Perot methinks the NeoCons, Banksters, and Main-Stream Media are starting to hear that "giant sucking sound" of people waking up and heading away from them.