NationStates Jolt Archive

As most of you know I don't like McCain, Clinton, or Obama and won't vote for any of them for president. So, I went mucking about on the Libertarian Party web site and found Wayne A. Root. I went to his web site and looked at where he stands on the issues. http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

While I don't agree 100% with him, I do like what he is saying. He is offering a real solution on the war rather than a "cut and run" or "stay there for 100 years" solution. He seems like a very good candidate. Would you vote for him?

He's a small-government fiscal conservative that leans left on social issues while also paying some amount of attention to the environment.

Were he a mainstream candidate, I'd vote for him. But he's not. And I'm not an American citizen.

In before the Paulbots.

Would you vote for him?

Since he won't do better than around 2% of the vote, matters of ideological compatibility are somewhat irrelevant. Besides, his website has that Fox News look to it; his apparent familiarity with cable punditry makes me vomit a little in my mouth.

Granted, my one vote out of millions isn't likely to make much of a difference even if voting for a major party candidate, but I can see the appeal in walking away from the polling place knowing that I voted for someone who at least stands a remote chance in hell of preventing another Republican term.

But I'm registered "Decline to State" and plan to vote accordingly, so...

He’s for liberty and freedom!!?

And here’s me about to vote for someone who was actively against liberty and freedom...

In a New York minute.

If only he had a chance in hell of winning.

*I support the total elimination of the Department of Education on the federal level. The more we spend on education, the WORSE the results, the more damage we do to our children. In 2000, the Dept. of Education budget was $33 billion. Today it is $64 billion. Has education improved? Have drop-out rates improved? Have reading or math scores improved? We've doubled the budget- yet the results are worse than ever. What a great example of bureaucracy, hypocrisy and waste. Hey a billion here and a billion there- pretty soon we have some real money at stake!

its a good thing I'm wearing goggles right now...

edit: for the lulz

*I support the hiring of fewer Government bureaucrats. And drastically lowering pensions and benefits for future government employees- these create massive debt and unfunded liabilities for taxpayers.
*I support ROOTING out government waste- to support this crucial goal, I will ask Congress to give the Government Accountability Office real power by elevating its chief, the Comptroller General of the United States, to a cabinet-level executive branch officer, with oversight over all federal programs and agencies. Under my plan, the Comptroller would have the ability to take government agencies to court to compel their efficient performance and to forcibly remove waste and pork.

*End the pointless (and expensive) prosecution of victimless crimes- end the police state/Big Brother. Billions of taxpayer monies are wasted by the investigation and prosecution of victimless crime.

*Why aren't Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and other moderate Arab countries paying their fair share for the Iraq war? Why aren't our moderate Arab allies sharing the risks of the war by sending their soldiers to patrol the streets of Baghdad? Why aren't they sharing the costs of the war? These governments stand to benefit the most- why are the American people paying for it all?

I think you can all get the point now ?:p

not a chance in hell

and luckily that is also his chance of winning.

its a good thing I'm wearing goggles right now...

Yeah, that bullshit alone is reason enough for me to wholly reject this guy.

I would vote for him if not for 1 thing: I'm too young!

Yeah, that bullshit alone is reason enough for me to wholly reject this guy.

You really can't just dismiss something like that completely. Throwing money at something does not necessarily improve it, economics is inherently more complex then that. I trust you are able to argue as to why this is a bad idea, right?

After reading through his list of views. Yes! I would. Not that I agree with him 100% on every issue though.

After skimming through that page... I like him, actually.

I still support McCain due to McCain's decades of foreign policy experience, but if the election comes down to, say, Huckabee v. Clinton, I might vote for him.

Fortunately, that is looking less and less likely.

So this guy is basically Ron Paul with twice the calories? No thanks.

His website makes him look really good.
The I watched his IntgrityInService speech (unfortunately comenting before I watched it all (got flamed by Paulbots too))

I would not vote for him

None of the Above in 08!

You really can't just dismiss something like that completely. Throwing money at something does not necessarily improve it, economics is inherently more complex then that. I trust you are able to argue as to why this is a bad idea, right?

Of course.

First off, our country's educational system is a mess as it is with the varying standards across the country mandated by states. This is one of the many reasons we are falling behind, because unlike other nations we keep trying to let certain portions of the country do things the way they want to rather than enforcing one standard across the whole.

Secondly, before you dismiss a possible solution, you have to look at why it didn't work. In this case, simply throwing money isn't working because we're not changing how it is spent. THAT is the problem. We're doing things incorrectly, and if we just toss more money without changing how we do things, of course we'll end up making things worse.

Instead, we look at what's being done wrong and we alter it. We fix it. We change the system rather than destroying it.

See, that's something I'm finding that people who share his viewpoint tend not to realize. Rather than bothering to take the time to examine why something isn't working, they simply figure that it is the problem itself and chuck the whole thing. It makes things worse to do that.

No.

Im a staunch Obama supporter.


That and libertarians are...well...inpractical and nutty imo.

He's a small-government fiscal conservative that leans left on social issues while also paying some amount of attention to the environment.

Were he a mainstream candidate, I'd vote for him. But he's not. And I'm not an American citizen.

Since I'm supposed to be reading for an essay at the moment, I'm going to accept your summation of Mr. Root. If you are correct, I like him; I would vote for him. If I could vote in the US.

No.

Im a staunch Obama supporter.


That and libertarians are...well...inpractical and nutty imo.

Does he actually have any policies yet? Otherwise, every man and jack of you strikes me as impressionable fools.

Does he actually have any policies yet? Otherwise, every man and jack of you strikes me as impressionable fools.




You clearly are not politically active.


Nice try to insult me though. But you fail.

Those of us with our heads out of the sand, paying attention to the political scene have heard all of his policies.

I live in the UK; why would I pay attention to his policies? Unless you can name me the policies proposed by Mr. Cameron at the last Conservative party conference, I'll not take criticism from a yank for my relative ignorance of US politics.

After all, I rely on the Barack fan club on NSG to do that for me...;)

Incidentally, could you list any policies for us poor ignorant huddled masses?

I live in the UK; why would I pay attention to his policies? Unless you can name me the policies proposed by Mr. Cameron at the last Conservative party conference, I'll not take criticism from a yank for my relative ignorance of US politics.

After all, I rely on the Barack fan club on NSG to do that for me...;)

Incidentally, could you list any policies for us poor ignorant huddled masses?


Ok, well than maybe you should make comments like this, eh?

Does he actually have any policies yet? Otherwise, every man and jack of you strikes me as impressionable fools.

I dont go around calling the supporters of politicians out of my country impressionalbe fools, do I?

Does he actually have any policies yet? Otherwise, every man and jack of you strikes me as impressionable fools.

Those of us with our heads out of the sand, paying attention to the political scene have heard all of his policies.

You clearly are not politically active.


Nice try to insult me though. But you fail.

Read the below. Of course I'm not politically active in the US; it would be rather expensive given I live in York...numpty.

However, I am, as far as its any concern of yours, "politically active". I may have handed in my Conservative party membership last summer when Mr. Cameron rejected the ideological basis for selective education, however, I remain politically interested and well read; if William Hague leads the Conservative party, I'll happily campaign and canvass for him.

Ok, well than maybe you should make comments like this, eh?



I dont go around calling the supporters of politicians out of my country impressionalbe fools, do I?

I merely stated that IF, and only IF, Obama has not announced any policies, I'd consider you all impressionable fools. Quite reasonable on my part actually.

Meh. He appears to be another "give our individual rights over to the state governments" type.

You really can't just dismiss something like that completely. Throwing money at something does not necessarily improve it, economics is inherently more complex then that. I trust you are able to argue as to why this is a bad idea, right?

the guy makes some sort of case on the assumption that the American education system is not short of money and in fact the more money its given the worse it will get (how knee-jerk libertarian)

hes a loon in short

I live in the UK; why would I pay attention to his policies?

because the US is a world superpower even I (a citizen of the UK) have managed to keep up

Unless you can name me the policies proposed by Mr. Cameron at the last Conservative party conference

"yobs need discipline! we realized we can't win an election on farmers alone! where still a political force to be reckoned with, honest!"

I'll not take criticism from a yank for my relative ignorance of US politics.

when was the last time UK elections where of any importance to the planet?

Incidentally, could you list any policies for us poor ignorant huddled masses?

out of Iraq, public health care, climate change and such

the guy makes some sort of case on the assumption that the American education system is not short of money and in fact the more money its given the worse it will get (how knee-jerk libertarian)

hes a loon in short



because the US is a world superpower even I (a citizen of the UK) have managed to keep up



"yobs need discipline! we realized we can't win an election on farmers alone! where still a political force to be reckoned with, honest!"



when was the last time UK elections where of any importance to the planet?



out of Iraq, public health care, climate change and such

Chinese politics are central to the planet; could you list recent developments there?

Cameron actually did very well at conference anyway; he might not have actually done what he should have, and pledged to reinstate selective education, radically lower taxes, limit ties with Europe and generally move to the right, however, his stance upon inheritence tax, and his recent posturing upon juvenile delinquence, is encouraging.

Cameron actually did very well at conference anyway; he might not have actually done what he should have, and pledged to reinstate selective education, radically lower taxes, limit ties with Europe and generally move to the right, however, his stance upon inheritence tax, and his recent posturing upon juvenile delinquence, is encouraging.
So no actual policies.

Cameron won’t announce any of your those desired policies you listed; he’s far too worried about gaining disgruntled Labour support. The Tories won’t be leaving the centre for a long while, much to your displeasure I’m sure.

Chinese politics are central to the planet; could you list recent developments there?

yes the recent snow affecting migrant workers being a big one along with the big water issues that are starting to affect the cities in particular (I could say the Beijing Olympics but Chinese poor being ignored is not really news)

are you ready to admit your rather ignorant now?

Since he won't do better than around 2% of the vote, matters of ideological compatibility are somewhat irrelevant.

and that would be if he doubled the highest score the liberts ever took before.

As opposed to the Obamabots?

are there such things?

In before the Paulbots.

As opposed to the Obamabots?

I take it you haven’t been here for very long.
L. O. L.

are there such things?

I take it you haven't been here for very long.

are you ready to admit your rather ignorant now?
Given that it's the blessed chris, most likely no.

Seriously, to hear people on here praise Obama, you’d think the man walked on water. He’s no more divine or infallible than Paul or any other politician (which is a euphemism for “crook”).
Preaching to the converted, mate.

But I’d support Obama over Paul. Lesser of two evils.

Yea, I would vote for him. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's the closes to my personal ideology.

L. O. L.

Seriously, to hear people on here praise Obama, you'd think the man walked on water. He's no more divine or infallible than Paul or any other politician (which is a euphemism for "crook").

I take it you haven't been here for very long.

He's been here for almost five more years than you.

He's been here for almost five more years than you.

Who says this is my first nation? :p

Who says this is my first nation? :p

People who have to make new nations don't matter.

People who have to make new nations don't matter.

lol

Preaching to the converted, mate.

But I’d support Obama over Paul. Lesser of two evils.

I don't like any politicians, so... *shrug*

Seriously, to hear people on here praise Obama, you'd think the man walked on water. He's no more divine or infallible than Paul or any other politician (which is a euphemism for "crook").

that isn't what makes paulbots paulbots

I don’t like any politicians, so... *shrug*
And neither do I.

Make no mistake: my ‘support’ for any political candidate would amount to a grudging sigh and shake of the head.

that isn't what makes paulbots paulbots

What does?

oh sweet jesus no. Absolutely not.

What does?

well, the way they enlarge their little tiny numbers by working as a swarm, the way that they are just utterly delusional and refuse to accept evidence and actually buy their own bullshit, the way they obsessively scan the web looking for mentions of the good doctor's name, and the bot-like non sequiturs their 'arguments' are made up of.

No, Libertarians suck.

anyone else find his name funny?
Said with an Australian drawl, it sounds like a sleazy come-on.
"Gidday Shirl, Wayne A Root?"

i won't vote for a complete 'pig in a poke'. although all of them to a major degree, even incumbents, are.

it would be nice to fanatacize anyone not presellected by the corporate mafia stood a snowflakes chance in that little cold town in montana.

if they did, the general election would be between gravel and ron paul, with maybe cynthia mckenny standing a real chance too.

obama is as good as we are likely to be able to get. hillary isn't my first choice either, but whoever gets in, other then the republican top contenders, we can probably live with.

get hillary or obama in there, with someone like edwards, kussenich or gravell for v.p. and a congress made up of the more radically liberal democrates, third partyistas and indipendents, and we might, be able to pull america's government's head at least a little out of its ass.

but i don't believe some fantasy riding in out of thin air is going to do anything in the way of a positive good.

=^^=
.../\...

OK, so this nutjob is an alternative to the mainstream candidates. So's a kick to the crotch. In fact, after reading his site, I'd say it's a better choice than he is.

well, the way they enlarge their little tiny numbers by working as a swarm, the way that they are just utterly delusional and refuse to accept evidence and actually buy their own bullshit, the way they obsessively scan the web looking for mentions of the good doctor's name, and the bot-like non sequiturs their 'arguments' are made up of.

Won't argue there.

Sorry, I don't vote for perople with no grasp of what government should do.

I rather have Al Gore......

Sorry, I don't vote for perople with no grasp of what government should do.

The only thing it should do is protect peoples' rights. Other than that, it should leave people the hell alone.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4290/commiesd7.jpg


*Flees*

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4290/commiesd7.jpg


*Flees*

I've seen a variation of that with Hillary. It's really silly.

As most of you know I don't like McCain, Clinton, or Obama and won't vote for any of them for president. So, I went mucking about on the Libertarian Party web site and found Wayne A. Root. I went to his web site and looked at where he stands on the issues. http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

While I don't agree 100% with him, I do like what he is saying. He is offering a real solution on the war rather than a "cut and run" or "stay there for 100 years" solution. He seems like a very good candidate. Would you vote for him?

I already sent in my ballot, and yes, I voted for him in the Libertarian primaries.

My main draw to him? The emphases on cutting spending.

In a New York minute.

If only he had a chance in hell of winning.

So you only vote for a candidate that is sure to win? Ergo, if you were back in Germany in the 1930's you would vote for Hitler?

So you only vote for a candidate that is sure to win? Ergo, if you were back in Germany in the 1930's you would vote for Hitler?

Sorry, but that's an even worse Godwin than the one I made in the other thread. :p

*smirks*

Do you really think they exist?

Yes, I do.

As opposed to the Obamabots?
*smirks*

Do you really think they exist?

I might in the General election, but in the Georgia Primary, it's still Huckabee. I figure it's the last and only chance I'll get to vote for the FairTax.

Huckabee scares me.

As most of you know I don't like McCain, Clinton, or Obama and won't vote for any of them for president. So, I went mucking about on the Libertarian Party web site and found Wayne A. Root. I went to his web site and looked at where he stands on the issues. http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

While I don't agree 100% with him, I do like what he is saying. He is offering a real solution on the war rather than a "cut and run" or "stay there for 100 years" solution. He seems like a very good candidate. Would you vote for him?

I might in the General election, but in the Georgia Primary, it's still Huckabee. I figure it's the last and only chance I'll get to vote for the FairTax.

His television appearances seemed to be split between Fox News and sports shows, with a substantial quantity being a show on Fox News in which the topic being discussed is sports...

My son, they are everywhere.

Not in my closet. I checked.

An alternative to McCain, Clinton, Obama?

Rejoin the British Empire.

In before the Paulbots.

They're here too?

:headbang:

They're here too?

:headbang:

My son, they are everywhere. If you saw that Will Smith movie that came out around Christmas, I'd assume that that is much like the internet and the Paulbots (not that I can say for certain, as I have not seen said movie).

Rejoin the British Empire.

Why not? We have nothing to lose.

No, not an American, but just no.

*I love the smell of vetoes in the morning- I will pledge to sign more VETOES than any President in history!

Why would you vote for a man who runs on the principle of opposing democracy as much as possible?

As opposed to the Obamabots?



So Im an Obama bot because in a thread dedicated to a potential alternative to Obama I said I support Obama?


Interesting.

So Im an Obama bot because in a thread dedicated to a potential alternative to Obama I said I support Obama?


Interesting.

Not at all. Not all Obama supporters are Obamabots.

Not at all. Not all Obama supporters are Obamabots.

I'm just wondering why you bothered to come up with the term at all, Eutrusca. I don't think I've seen any Obama supporters as fanatical as Ron Paul supporters. (And I personally prefer the Paulitburo anyway.)

I'm just wondering why you bothered to come up with the term at all, Eutrusca. I don't think I've seen any Obama supporters as fanatical as Ron Paul supporters. (And I personally prefer the Paulitburo anyway.)

I'm not Eutrusca. I've seen a few Obama supporters as fanatical as Paul supporters, though admittedly not nearly as numerous as the Paulitburo.

Fair enough. I have yet to see Obama supporters attack the internet though.

Fair enough. I have yet to see Obama supporters attack the internet though.

Same here.

And on an unrelated note...


Am I the only person scared shitless by this pic?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44390000/jpg/_44390731_thumbsup_ap203x200.jpg

He looks like a power hungry lunatic and/or a child molester.

I'm not Eutrusca. I've seen a few Obama supporters as fanatical as Paul supporters, though admittedly not nearly as numerous as the Paulitburo.
Ah.

But you're not? I could've sworn you were, what with your acting like you know everyone around here, and the name, and the fact that Eut e-mailed Smunkee recently...

Ah.

But you're not? I could've sworn you were, what with your acting like you know everyone around here, and the name, and the fact that Eut e-mailed Smunkee recently...

I'm not.

I can explain my name easily. It's "Mandaue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaue_City)" (my g.f.'s hometown) spelled backwards.

I'm not.

I can explain my name easily. It's "Mandaue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaue_City)" (my g.f.'s hometown) spelled backwards.

Oh. Sorry about the mistake.

Oh. Sorry about the mistake.

It's all right.

I've seen a variation of that with Hillary. It's really silly.

So have I. It's Celtlund's favorite picture. And you're right; it's not funny. I don't even like Hillary and I don't find that picture funny.

He’s for liberty and freedom!!?

And here’s me about to vote for someone who was actively against liberty and freedom...

Then you'll like this (http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=15772) guy.

Why not? We have nothing to lose.
Huzzah!

Oh btw, as a new member of the EU, your GM crop usage is henceforth being smacked by the Banzerfaust :p

Huckabee scares me.

I worry about 'em all. There isn't a single major party candidate that's still running that hasn't got a major flaw.
McCain doesn't like free speech.
Romney is a lot like Clinton in that he believes anything he needs to...
Obama was endorsed by Teddy Kennedy
Hillary wants to make all our decisions for us and criminalize not having health care.

<SNIP> And I'm not an American citizen.
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
I never would have guessed :rolleyes:

Would you vote for him?

Nope

*I support Voting ballots in English-only. My goal is to reduce the cost of government. Therefore we must stop wasting taxpayer money by printing ballots and administering elections in multiple languages.

Someone should point out to this идиот that English is not the official language of the U.S.

Of course I wouldn't vote for him, I'm part of the Liberal-Commie Conspiracy

In a New York minute.

If only he had a chance in hell of winning.

If everyone who said that voted for a third party candidate the third party candidate could get elected.

the guy makes some sort of case on the assumption that the American education system is not short of money and in fact the more money its given the worse it will get (how knee-jerk libertarian)


We have thrown more and more money at education and it has not improved. We have mandated testing which has lead to teachers teaching the test rather than teaching the material.

What is needed is not more money but a complete overhaul of the education system and the elimination of teacher tenure. Get the federal government out of the education system and give it back to the states and local school districts. Reward teachers who excel and fire those who are there just to collect a pay check. Cut the administrative bloat in all school districts and put the money into the classrooms where it belongs.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4290/commiesd7.jpg


*Flees*

Cute Grav, cute. But I will find you. :D

Rejoin the British Empire.

Only if they bring Maggie or John back and banish Charles from the realm. :p

Since Liberty is not an option.
I guess we all have to go with Death.

Edit: Since our greatest hope is now gone.
http://jmc.jnumbers.com/pictures/GiulianiRly.PNG

So have I. It's Celtlund's favorite picture. And you're right; it's not funny. I don't even like Hillary and I don't find that picture funny.

I know y'all like this one the best.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

No.

I don't aprove of this Libertarian crap about reducing taxes, and generally am against anarcho-capitalist small government ideologies.

Since Liberty is not an option.
I guess we all have to go with Death.

Edit: Since our greatest hope is now gone.
http://jmc.jnumbers.com/pictures/GiulianiRly.PNG

He waited to late and put all his eggs in Florida. I would still vote for him in the General Election if he ran as a third party candidate. That's what this country needs is leadership and he has that.

He waited to late and put all his eggs in Florida. I would still vote for him in the General Election if he ran as a third party candidate. That's what this country needs is leadership and he has that.

as evidenced by what, precisely?

Other than the right to bear arms, I don't think I agree with anything on his list of policies.

I never would have guessed :rolleyes:

Hey, he could be an expatriate.

Guiliani Policies:

1. Regressive tax rate of 0.01%
2. Deport all people who don't make their income on capital gains
3. Terrorists.
4. 9/11
5. Terrorists
6. Final solution to Muslim question
7. ???
8. Profit

So have I. It's Celtlund's favorite picture. And you're right; it's not funny. I don't even like Hillary and I don't find that picture funny.

Agreed. Hillary is many things, but a communist? :rolleyes:

Guiliani Policies:

1. Regressive tax rate of 0.01%
2. Deport all people who don't make their income on capital gains
3. Terrorists.
4. 9/11
5. Terrorists
6. Final solution to Muslim question
7. ???
8. Profit

More like this:

Giuliani policies:

1. 9/11
2. 9/11
3. 9/11
4. 9/11
5. 9/11
6. 9/11
7. 9/11
8. 9/11
9. 9/11

ad infinitum

All the cool people have tried communism once or twice.

Not Hillary.

Oh, wait, you said "cool people." :p

Agreed. Hillary is many things, but a communist? :rolleyes:

All the cool people have tried communism once or twice.

Agreed. Hillary is many things, but a communist? :rolleyes:

No, not a communist and that's why I took that part off. No one seemed to see the humor in it. :( She is a socialist however.

Agreed. Hillary is many things, but a communist? :rolleyes:

Now if it had been a picture of Hillary with a caption that read "Defeat Fascism"...

No, not a communist and that's why I took that part off. No one seemed to see the humor in it. :(

in so far as there was humor in it, it was not at the expense of who you think it was

She is a socialist however.

No, she isn't.

Now if it had been a picture of Hillary with a caption that read "Defeat Fascism"...

Like this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/hillaryfac.jpg

In what way?

Backpeddling due to business interests on an already limited implementation of ‘universal’ healthcare doesn’t count as ‘socialism’.

It's just that Americans have had their political compass twisted and distorted so that anything that does not fit inside their tiny far-right thinking is automatically 'communism' or 'socialism'. Sad really.

She is a socialist however.
In what way?

Backpeddling due to business interests on an already limited implementation of ‘universal’ healthcare doesn’t count as ‘socialism’.

Other than the right to bear arms, I don't think I agree with anything on his list of policies.

I dislike the connection made between said right and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is far too poorly written to be the basis of anything (not that human rights derive from pieces of paper to begin with, but that's a whole other can of worms.) The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect my right to keep and own things sufficiently. Plus, his waffle back to criminal background and mental illness checks, while perhaps reasonable, are nonetheless out of character for a Libertarian. I suspect a desire to pander to Law-And-Order Republican types. Those types make me fidgety.

That said, I enjoy how, in my browser, the "I support Workplace Freedom" section is positioned right next to the links to the Libertarian Party and Cato Institute in the navigation bar to the left. The irony makes my eyes water.

I get this gut feeling that his pro-secrecy position concerning union votes and such is a bad idea, but I'm not entirely sure why; I'm by no means an expert concerning unions and how they work. Something about it seems fishy, especially considering that later he calls for more transparency and less secrecy for government (i.e. that authority with the most regulatory power over the Boss).

I don't vote based on who I think will win, I don't vote based on party. I vote on who I think is the best candidate for the job. I dislike McCain and Hillary because they both have shown an obscene disregard fo the Constitution. If the choice is between the two of them, I will vote third party. Better to vote for a probable loser than the lesser of two evils.

I like Ron Paul. I like the Libertarian philosophy. I also like the Constitution party. I don't know about Romney. I may be able to vote for him. The Huckster seems too fake, and I'm leery of his record as Arkansas Governor. Don't think we really need ANOTHER one of those ;)

I get this gut feeling that his pro-secrecy position concerning union votes and such is a bad idea, but I'm not entirely sure why; I'm by no means an expert concerning unions and how they work. Something about it seems fishy, especially considering that later he calls for more transparency and less secrecy for government (i.e. that authority with the most regulatory power over the Boss).

typically people of that ideological bent call for different union voting practices because under those practices, even union drives that have gotten essentially everybody to already join the union lose the vote. it seems that somehow people that are already in the union are convinced at the last minute to change their positions. i'm sure i have no idea how that could possibly happen...

typically people of that ideological bent call for different union voting practices because under those practices, even union drives that have gotten essentially everybody to already join the union lose the vote. it seems that somehow people that are already in the union are convinced at the last minute to change their positions. i'm sure i have no idea how that could possibly happen...

Yeah, I just finished reading a wikipedia article about the process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check). Specifically, the bit where the law currently allows the employer to demand a secret ballot vote on unionization, even after a majority of employees have signed cards.

Intercept for the kill, under the guise of protecting the democratic process.

Thus my upset stomach.

Yes, because his name is Root! :p