StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) No third party is going to rise to power without significant sources of money. Its not about votes, its about the price to get yourself there. The only way a third party will spring from the ground without the necessity of significant sources of capital would be someone who in and of themselves, is already well known., Some one who has a cult of personality that could break through the wall that the 2 party system has created. And even then, it has failed. Teddy ran as a third party and lost, Perot lost. What should not be forgotten is that in either of those years, if you added Roosevelt to Taft or Perot to Bush, the mainstream party candidate would have won. Ballots arent for being pragmatic, they are for winning and losing. I feel I lose with either the Democrats or the Republicans. Why should I vote for them?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 01:30 PM) Ill never find a candidate I agree with, its just picking the lesser of 2 evils. I would support Kucinich even if I don't agree with him on everything.

"Dem or Rep" is a false dichotomy, that's the point, it's the reason both parties are objectively terrible. Yeah, I'm closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, but I still think they're generally a terrible party that won't advance an agenda I agree with. If the choices were the Republican party or the Constitution party, I wouldn't vote Republican just because I think they're less terrible than the Constitution party. I'm not going to pretend that I support Obama, and he won't get my vote. I know it's a doomed effort, but the attitude of "Welp gotta pick the dem, at least he doesn't openly support violations of civil and human rights, just in practice!" is a big part of the damn problem. No third party is going to rise to power if I vote for a democrat because he's slightly less terrible than a republican. Listen to Malcom X's The Bullet or the Ballot speech, especially around the 30 min mark which is the part I quoted, and tell me you can't just replace Dixiecrats with Blue Dogs and get the 2011 version.

If I'm left between someone I know will be terrible on the issues that I find important, someone who will claim to care about them but demonstrably is either lying or weak and ineffective or LaRouche, I will refrain from voting for President in 2012. In 2008, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party both fielded candidates on the Illinois ballot for President as well as several independents. Obama has been "less than good" so far. The Democrats, what with their SuperMajority for two years, have been terrible. They've been Republican-lite at best. I see no reason why I should vote in support of that.

Not voting?

I won't vote for a terrible candidate who's done a crap job and stabbed his more liberal constituency in the back repeatedly for over 2 years by caving in to Republicans over and over and over. That Obama is inevitably better than whatever terrible candidate the Republicans will offer is not an argument in favor of perpetuating our terrible, doomed system.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 12:39 PM) it worked in november!

99% sure I won't be voting for Obama.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 20, 2011 -> 09:27 PM) I hate this country. .

Why is this a clearly important story with international interest?

lolwut

LOL Rondo, get outta my poll

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 09:01 PM) I've been listening to NPR a lot lately and its so funny, the way conservatives talk about it and what it actually is. NPR is about as neutral as you can get. Soooo much better than cable news because they don't talk about bulls***. If something isn't blatantly pro-conservative, then it must be super-liberal. They're consistently one of the best mainstream media sources out there, and the whole conservative campaign against them is a joke. But hey, O'Douche showed a couple of very heavily edited tapes showing a fundraiser maybe making some disparaging remarks about tea party people, so shut the damn thing down!

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 04:32 PM) While I agree with you, that didn't really contribute now, did it? What else needs to be said to a claim that someone "proved" Paul is better than Rose because of "advanced statistics?"

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Apparently you do. This discussion has ben about who's the best PG in the league. Myself, J4L and few others have proven through stats and advanced stats that Chris Paul is the better player. The rest of Soxtalk, through Rose colored glasses are using the weakass excuse "I'll trust my eyes". You go trust those eyes. I'm pretty sure you guys haven't watched a Hornets game in years. And I better not hear another "Rose shoots because he has to." That's what you guys wanted when you said "Get rid of Gordon, Rose needs to be able to shoot at all times. Gordon is a chucker." Like most of you guys know what a chucker is. lol

I think transportation costs are negligible compared to labor cost differences between the two countries.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 05:25 AM) I wondered how much they really could change the game itself. It's football. What could you do make the field 400 yards long and add warp speed? Throw in speed bumps? I guess I become a republican when companies get sued for being successful. Good point, Super TecmoBowl was the same game as Madden '11 except roster updates, nothing they can do because football is football right?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) I don't understand why you are so obsessed with posters from other message boards. It's so simple to avoid what they are typing, and way more simple to not give a s***. Schadenfreude. It's funny.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 22, 2011 -> 10:35 AM) clearly the wsj has not seen atlas shrugged. lol

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) Bernsie got pwned. Yeah, he absolutely refused to admit he was wrong about telling Terry what he did or didn't eat 15 years ago, even after they called a Waffle House in Georgia.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) 1. B&B (I enjoy the humor and if you can get past the name-calling, they actually know what they are talking about usually) 2. Waddle & Silvy (Work well together and entertaining) 3. Mully & Hanley (Occasionally funny, somewhat boring, but very informative nontheless) 4. Carmen, Jurko, & Harry (Try too hard to be funny sometimes, not a good mix) 5. Danny Mac Show (I've gotten sick of Mac, just gotten too big and too full of himself IMO. Always about what he's doing or who he knows) This, pretty much. Plus B&B had a 15 minute argument over pancakes being served at Waffle House the other week. That was pretty epic.

lol love the avatar anyway more evidence we need to nationalize all multinational companies immediately! Not really but I'm not sure how developed countries handle globalization and the free movement of wealth like we have now without reducing wages and living standards to third-world levels for all but a handful of plutocrats.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 03:37 AM) No s*** Why the hell don't they play more frequently The NBA playoffs stretch on for 3 months. It's ridiculous.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 20, 2011 -> 11:26 PM) Nobody ever does that, seriously. So many incorrect things are said about the pessimistic posters. It's like watching Fox News talk about Democrats.