>i really don't care who people
>vote for, for you try
>psycho-analyze me as most other
>cats on this site as
>some progressive tyrant is funny
>as hell but anyway...

Stop lying. If you didn't care about who people voted for then you wouldn't have campaigned for Bradley and Nader.

>I want far leftists to a
>real chioce (Soc. Party etc.)
>I want liberals to have a
>real liberal choice (Green Party)
>I want moderate liberals to have
>a real choice (Dems)
>i want independents? to have a
>choice (Reform)
>i want moderate conservatives to have
>a choice (Reps)
>i want true conservatives to have
>a chioce (Libs)

And all of them have choices.
However, not all of those parties are going to have equal footing. It's not as if Libertarians are going to have as good as a start as the Republicans, who formed as a result of the merging of several smaller parties during pre-Civil War days. It's the same way for other parties. If they are legit, and people like them, then they will get a following. However to think that will happen overnight is unrealistic. The Greens are only popular because Nader is a well known consumer advocate. Reform? Well Buchanan is an outspoken social conservative. (But really, do the Reform Party even have a set agenda? That should tell you something.) Other than that, the others arent well known, so they aren't going to get alot of press than the others.

>///I've been hearing the Naderites bytch
>and moan for months now,
>but the thing you don't
>get is that you get
>more press than any other
>third party candidate. Buchanan, Browne,
>nor Phillips gets nowhere close
>to the coverage Ralph Nader
>does, especially on CNN and
>other liberal networks. It's funny
>how you whine and complain
>about the "evil 2 party
>system", but when has Nader
>challenged anyone other than Bush
>and Gore? Has he challenged
>Buchanan to a debate? Has
>he challenged Harry Browne to
>a debate? How about Howard
>Phillips? The answer is no.
>Why? Because he wants to
>play the same game that
>he is criticizing. Not to
>mention that he is afraid
>of the same thing from
>those candidates that Bush and
>Gore could be afraid of
>him: if they embarrass them,
>there goes any kind of
>respectability that his campaign has
>along with it. (I personally
>think Harry Browne would wipe
>the floor with his ass
>in a debate.) In short,
>Ralph Nader's constant challenges are
>nothing more than a contradiction.///

>I point is that most countries
>in the western world have
>more than two choices in
>a given election...

Yes, but they usually only take two of them seriously.

>it's not just about the duopoly
>its also the winner take
>all system of politics...

Elaborate. What is the alternative that you are advocating?

>Nader may have his own agenda
>but my reason for wanting
>this, my idea came to
>mind long before Nader threw
>his name in the hat
>so to assume that Nader
>enlightened us to the situation
>is silly.

But it's funny that the only ones that bring it up (at least in here) are Nader supporters (but then again, maybe I am the only other third party supporter in here).

>Look this much bigger than Nder
>this about Harry Browne checkin'
>Geo. W. on true conservatism.
>It is about everybody having
>an oppurtunity share their views
>at a debate i think
>it would tight is all
>those cats were in the
>debate.

Yeah but you can't just throw everyone that wants to run for president in a debate. There has got to be some kind of standard in which the candidates must adhere to. I don't see nothing wrong is 15% of the polls or 5% of the popular vote. Lets give the spotlight to the ones who actually have a chance of making a difference. Harry Browne is going through the same thing that Ralph Nader is. The only difference is that Nader is the only one doing the complaining.

>A Black Libertarian- WTF?

I say the same thing about black leftists. It's like an oxymoron.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.