Sweet! Two men enter, one man leave!

Quote from: WerekoalaSo yeah, no voting for me this time around.

Honestly?  I figured with all the Clinton die-hards fleeing the party, you would've stood a decent chance in November.

!i!

(P.S. Even at this late stage, it's still too early to declare Obama the nominee.  It ain't over till the fat lady sings...or the senator from New York in this case.)

Quote from: James J Skach...to our families so they can escape this nonsense and become self-sustaining cultures on an island somewhere.

I've been considering this for some time now, ever since I read of Robert of Molesme and the founding of the Cistercian order, and how they used the Rule of St Benedict to establish small, self-sufficient communities of like-minded people. Much of the manual labor required at the time could be performed by waterwheel or windmill, and the remainder isn't onerous. [My family already maintains a communal garden which provides much of our food.]

Plus, I don't like people very much, and the more of them there are in a given area, the less I like them. So I'm thinking island nonsense escape is the way to go.

Koala - would you rather a guy who might do some republican things, or someone that wouldn't do any?

That's my conumdrum. Hence I'm voting McStain. Ew.

Quote from: Engine...I'm thinking island nonsense escape is the way to go.

Provided the people already there are okay with you moving in.  Personally, I'm quite happy that my wife has family with grazing and crop-land on the Big Island.

!i!

Quote from: shewolfKoala - would you rather a guy who might do some republican things...

You mean like raiding the Federal till, cronyism, and nation-building? :haw:

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaProvided the people already there are okay with you moving in.

Well, I'm thinking an island with low occupation or no occupation at all - I've a couple selected in the Caribbean where growing crops shouldn't be too difficult, and one in northern Canada where at least I know you can grow mosquitoes - but if I ended up on an island with too many occupants, I suspect the war for the territory would be brief and overwhelmingly successful. But that's because I've seen the gun cabinets of the people I'd take with me.

Quote from: EngineNo, Republicans are, once in power, no more "small government" than their counterparts across the aisle, with too few exceptions. The solution will probably need to lie not only outside those parties, but outside the political arena altogether; our Constitution was specifically built to invest the government with inertia, so too much change could not happen too quickly; that government must cease to exist before rapid, drastic change could occur.

They're not "small government" in the sense of less spending.  They're "small government" in the sense of interfering less in the lives of the people.  Yeah, that's it.  They stand up for people being able to watch the media they want, marry whoever they want, take the substances they want, and do what they want to their own bodies.  

Oops!  Wait...    

Seriously, in the U.S., it seems reducing spending and the national debt is always something that the party out of power attacks the party in power with.  Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in government pushing into people's lives.  They just have different spins on similar approaches.  Republicans tend to trumpet about family values when pushing to suppress offensive material, and then accuse the Democrats of enforcing "political correctness".  Democrats tend to trumpet about respecting minorities or such, and then accuse Republicans of "censorship".

Quote from: jhkimThey're not "small government" in the sense of less spending.  They're "small government" in the sense of interfering less in the lives of the people.  Yeah, that's it.  They stand up for people being able to watch the media they want, marry whoever they want, take the substances they want, and do what they want to their own bodies.

I know, isn't that the most ridiculous thing? That moral interference - and the astonishing prevalence of incredibly religious persons - is one of the many reasons I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Libertarian, either, but one could use the word libertarian in its adjective sense to describe me.

Before I really understood what being a Republican meant in practice [on the national level, in any case; things are very different at "lower" levels], I thought I was Republican, but that was because I was fiscally and governmentally conservative. However, I am socially liberal, to a degree which terrifies some, and so I've never been able to truly find a home with the Republicans. Nor, of course, with the Democrats, with whom I have serious conflicts regarding the most desirable role of government, particularly federal government.

Quote from: jhkimSimilarly, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in government pushing into people's lives.  They just have different spins on similar approaches.  Republicans tend to trumpet about family values when pushing to suppress offensive material, and then accuse the Democrats of enforcing "political correctness".  Democrats tend to trumpet about respecting minorities or such, and then accuse Republicans of "censorship".

Well, in the end, they're mostly wealthy white men, who have more in common than they have differences. This is a flaw in our electoral process, and I don't have a solution for it. It needs a solution, though.

Quote from: EngineI thought I was Republican, but that was because I was fiscally and governmentally conservative. However, I am socially liberal, to a degree which terrifies some, and so I've never been able to truly find a home with the Republicans. Nor, of course, with the Democrats, with whom I have serious conflicts regarding the most desirable role of government, particularly federal government.

I wonder how many of us there are. There might be some quibbling over s few specifics, but for the most part I bet there's quite a few.

It's a shame, really.

I don't have access to islands, so I'm laying the groundwork for two compounds on either side of Lake Michigan - ironically neither in my home state.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou mean like raiding the Federal till, cronyism, and nation-building? :haw:

!i!

Um. Conservative judges?

That's all I can think of. But a crumb is better than none.



Ian, FFS don't make me more depressed about this fucking election than I already am!

Quote from: EngineBefore I really understood what being a Republican meant in practice [on the national level, in any case; things are very different at "lower" levels], I thought I was Republican, but that was because I was fiscally and governmentally conservative. However, I am socially liberal, to a degree which terrifies some, and so I've never been able to truly find a home with the Republicans. Nor, of course, with the Democrats, with whom I have serious conflicts regarding the most desirable role of government, particularly federal government.

You know, my liberal friends are always aghast when I told them I registered Republican at age 18 (I'm independent now).  And you've articulated exactly why I did what I did.

Or, as I tell my friends, the Republican party you know now is not the Republican party I joined in my youth.

Quote from: shewolfUm. Conservative judges?

Hey, you get a few, we get a few.  That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?  That way you have a Supreme Court that is (hopefully) representative of the nation as a whole.  And don't forget that both "conservative" and "liberal" Supreme Justices tend to moderate over time.  So, on this point, I see this as a win-win for everybody.

QuoteIan, FFS don't make me more depressed about this fucking election than I already am!

Oh, don't be depressed.  My family and I have survived George W. Bush's dissident labor camps just fine by ratting out our barracks-mates, and are looking forward to true freedom for the first time in nearly six years.  I'm sure you and your family will surive the camps just fine, too ("Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...").

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHey, you get a few, we get a few.  That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?  That way you have a Supreme Court that is (hopefully) representative of the nation as a whole.  And don't forget that both "conservative" and "liberal" Supreme Justices tend to moderate over time.  So, on this point, I see this as a win-win for everybody.

Supposed to work? really? The judges are supposed to be "representative of the nation?"

Quote from: James J SkachSupposed to work? really? The judges are supposed to be "representative of the nation?"

Opinions differ. They aren't supposed to represent a current vogue in political opinion, certainly, especially as a whole.  So the bench is comprised of differing opinions that bring differing viewpoints to bear on important cases to deliberate, instead of stacking the bench in favor of a particular outcome.

!i!