Mike Gillis kudos to you and your intellect. I wish I was articulate enough to make those points!

CT do you always speak such rubbish? I can make things up too. Seriously, where do you get your information from. Can you smell your own fecal matter on your knees?

I love Mike Gravel but he isn’t on the same page as libertarians; Mr. Gravel should have of ran as a Green.

Also, do people realize that Nader doesn’t disappear post election? He is currently working on a congress watchdog group!

As I’ve said more than once, the only places where those reforms get any traction are places where there is a strong third party presence or after a strong third party vote. Examples being San Francisco’s Greens and the Progressives in Vermont.

If we all voted major party and did so openly without making hardline demands, why the hell should these parties give us ANY reforms? Why would there any demand for reform?

The pushes for term limits and balanced budgets in the 90s came about because of the electoral challenge of the Reform Party. The New Deal came about because of the electoral challenge of the Socialist Party… The potential for the end of the electoral college in 1968 only happened because George Wallace ran with the AIP and challenged the system as a third party candidate!

The “Fringe Alliance” bullshit is the same old “you should stop running for office until you change the system” line, which forgets that the only way to change the system is from the outside of it, with third parties leading the charge.

That’s the only thing that ever HAS changed anything.

And if you honestly think that Obama is actually anti-war and that he’s a covert theocratic socialist revolutionary who’s just lying to win….

...well, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

We’ve heard the “fight for the reforms and THEN run candidates” argument and it doesn’t work, because ONLY in places with strong third parties have we ever gotten any of those reforms. Without a strong third party presense, there is no pressure for them to implement any of those reforms. Period.

Your “Strategy” isn’t a strategy at all. I wouldn’t support it because it’s historically proven to be bullshit.

And your defense of Obama is “don’t worry, he’s just a liar and he’ll say anything to get elected”?

That’s just sad. The “stealth progressive/libertarian/conservative”...excuse is just a rationalization that people make for themselves to keep voting for shitty candidates.

I’d support a seat belt law around every socialist’s neck.

For one, he’s a member of the United Church of Christ.

And for another his record is pretty pro-war, as he’s voted for every war funding package, voted against war withdrawal timetables, has a “withdrawal” plan that would leave around 20-60,000 troops in Iraq – plus the military contractors. Plus he’s a hawk on Iran and Pakistan.

The rest of his record is painful UNprogressive as well. Voting to renew the PATRIOT Act and opposing universal healthcare settles that. Not to mention that he spends large portions of his book attacking the New Deal and advocating Clinton style triangulation.

Your imaginary friend is beaming you Son of Sam style messages about how he’ll usher in some sort of theocratic socialist revolution. That’s some bad intel and the fact that you’ve spoken highly of Imperato and Milnes as second and third choices just goes to show how truly moronic you really are. And your so-called “Fringe Alliance” strategy isn’t that. It’s just the same old “vote Democrat or the boogie man’ll get you” bullshit.

And it’s just as untrue as the notion that Nader put Bush in the White House. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Just as a vote for Baldwin is a vote for Baldwin. And a vote for Barr or Root is a vote for Barr or Root. Period.

CT, please do go fuck yourself.

At least with the mandatory seat belt laws you can still make a choice. Sure, one has you breaking the law but you still get to make a choice.

However, if we must focus on minor issues, I’m more peeved at anti-tinting laws. Laws in most states forbid car owners from tinting windshields and side windows.

Two reasons are offered: 1. It’s dangerous to drive with a tinted windshield, as it will make it harder to see at night, and 2. It’d danerous for police, as they can’t see into your car when they pull you over, and see if you have guns.

However, tinted windows: 1. Protect against skin cancer and other sun damage, 2. Protect against burglary, because thieves can’t see if there’s anything worth stealing in your parked car, 3. Protect against violence, because a tinted car may contain a lone woman or a group of tough men, 4. Protect against accidents, as he sun won’t shine in your eyes—sometimes so bright in southern California that even sunglasses don’t entirely help.

Liberals HATE IT when Libertarians bring up the issue. They squirm, they evade, they ignore, they do everything they can to escape an issue that they know divides them from all libertarians.

Hey Liberal Nader supporters. Please explain why is it that your guy wants to force me to wear a seat belt in my own car? I own my vehicle. I paid for the thing. They government didn’t buy it for me.

Why isn’t your guy Nader Pro-Choice on seat belt use?

Admit it: He’s a Safety Nazi. He’s an Authoritarian who wants to tell Americans how to live their own lives.

Stop evading the issue. Answer us libertarians this simple question: Why does Ralph Nader want to violate our individual rights to freedom of choice on how to drive our own vehicles withouth government intervention?

I am free to ‘throw away’ my vote as California will have it’s entire electorial delegation go to the Democrat candidate by over one million ballots.

As a member of the wacky Peace and Freedom Party [Federal Felon for President any one? How about jet ace and former congress person “Puke” (Tucson) Cunningham?] I voted Perot/ Perot/ Nader/ Nader! But even in 2004 he was ‘past the shelf date’! Sad but true!