The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Why I will be voting 3rd party for Prez

This post on WND pretty much sums it up. Barring a last minute change of mind, I will probably be voting for GJ this Nov. Yes, GJ will not win, its a protest vote. I also reserve the right to change my mind.

But the events in Tampa have really been bothering me. This post on wnd more or less echoes my thoughts on the matter.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/romneys-fair-warning/

This article makes mention of a dictatorial delegate counting process, but doesn't back it up with any information. This is the first I've read of this. What is he talking about, particularly with regard to not recognizing the delegates from Maine?
*edit
I looked this up but still can't find why they did this or how this action gets ascribed to Romney.

I posted it because it was an echo of my own thoughts, not a sourced sway-article.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/n...elegates-maine/

This is a good breakdown of what happened in Maine.

I have followed the state conventions and RNC very closely, and will say that the article is right on the money.

http://youtu.be/pKaXqoC4DjE

^ Good segment by reporter at Fox19 out of Cincy. Ben Swann does a lot of good work for the local Fox affiliate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fruTILguQA&feature=youtu.be

^Grassroots delegate statements


Theres a lot more to be found. Might post up some more Monday if there is interest.. especially about Mass, LA, and a few other places.

I am from Texas, my vote dont count one dierction or anthoer. In past years I have written michael jackson, sting, and gandi.

I think sooner GOP gets the message, sooner rebuilding process can start. Perhaps one day we will meet at GOP convention. Given a choice between current-day Democratic Party and say Reagan-era GOP I'd have hard time justifying supporting Democrats.

I would like a cross of the liberatian party and the green party.

How do you expect such party to work? Environmental protection requires sizable government and heavy regulation.

I have no problem with a larger government when it comes to the environment, as long as the regulations are common sense. Yes there is a time when it will come down to one or the other and those must be taken on a 1 by 1 basis.

Actually you can make plenty of things illegal, and enforce those laws/regulations without utilizing the concept of prior restraint. People get so caught up in the fact that the libertarian *way* of doing things is different, that they mistakenly think that there is *no* libertarian way to do something like protect the environment.

What really confuses me sometimes, is that people think that a political philosophy that treasures private property rights is somehow conducive to letting other people dump trash in various forms on other peoples' property.

Plus, only the purest strains of ultra libertarianism call for total elimination of all forms of govt prior restraint. Though a more libertarian style would certainly be to police and investigate cases of infractions, combined with stiffer penalties and better legal recourse for the afflicted.

Ok, so you own property. Corp dumped toxic sludge on the edge of it, and it all get washed into your land, contaminating water table and poisoning your land. You sue the company, shell declares bankruptcy and you left holding the bag...

I really don't see how can you have environmental protection that is non-preventative leaves too many ways to offload responsibility on someone else. Unless you also considering rethinking how corporations work, down to the very basic delete and start fresh level.

The amount of assumed responsibility surely has to change.

The people who dumped the sludge, if it is in fact toxic, should certainly be facing long prison terms.

The situation you described is actually a pretty common occurrence under the current status quo unfortunately. I certainly think that in certain situations, more responsibility needs to be assumed on the part of corporate officers. Not shareholders directly, who would invest in a stock if it could mean legal action due to actions you had no knowledge/control over? But people who control hazardous waste should in fact bear responsibility for its use/disposal.

I think that leaves a void of liability, however I think voluntary measures could be instituted to limit that liability when dealing with hazardous material.

Its a complicated subject that I do not think is prone to blanket statements. Different types of materials and situations need to be handled differently. As I said, I am not calling for an end to all prior restraint... but by the same token the current status quo isnt very good either. The current status quo is better than nothing, and having no framework in place... but what I disagree with is increasing both the power and insularity of the current regulatory bodies. Like many federal agencies, they live in their own little political bubble.

I think the answer lies in increasing accountability of individuals, and basing regulation on the material effects on citizens and property owners. But by the same token, if you are not harming anyone else.. the govt has no business telling you what to do.

In the end result, I think people would be better off. The group that would be displeased are the animal rights people.. because I dont think the govt has any business telling people what to do with their land on behalf of an animal/habitat. Which is really where a good portion of the EPAs controversial actions stem from.

Well, corporations would just employ figureheads and fall guys.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Current system is shitty, and will only become shittier due Supreme Court decision on SuperPACs. Still, tearing it down, as satisfying it might sound, is not guarantee to produce positive results.

Bigger Government and common sense will never happen with so many people passing around an issue to make a final decision on. We've seen this process and takes months if not years before anything can be done, and that IS the biggest problem with having bigger Government. Our Government needs a HEAVY lesson in the K.I.S.S (Keep it simple stupid) system.

I can find no reason to disagree with you.

This yearning for "smaller government" that is so representative of conservatism these days is nothing but a bunch of absurd revisionism and yearning for simpler times. Government is bigger these days because life we lead, our society is so much more complex than ever before. The only way to go back to such small government is to collectively switch to Amish lifestyle and sign out of western civilization.

Reality of "small government" push is this is nothing but a bunch of astroturfing by corporations that quickly realized that this is a good way to reduce government oversight. You could have the best legislation and environmental regulation in the world, but it will be largely meaningless without fully-funded agency to audit, control and enforce such regulation.

When you tell me "small government", I hear "government too small to function".

You've isolated the problem, now all you have to do is focus on the solution. Learn to read/hear what we say, not what you think we mean.

We hit the point of diminishing returns re:size of govt a long time ago now.

Your faith that our society can be improved by giving already over-large and dysfunctional govt bodies even more of our money and rights never ceases to amaze me. Especially given that accountability does not seem to have any place in your calculus, combined with the proven link between power+lack of social standing as a cause of bad behavior.