http://3rdparty.org/ custom-built by the american people Fri, 09 May 2008 21:10:55 +0000 http://backend.userland.com/rss092 en Forum While I am not exactly sure what you were intending to address in your post, I am unable to find any evidence that you are out of your gourd. In fact, you rightly point out that most politicians appear to be out of touch with the notion of running for the "common man." I think this is largely due to the fact that there is no singular "common man" left in this country — we are so diverse that our various groups are common amongst themselves, often in great numbers, yet bearing little resemblance to one another in values or needs. The common person in one industry in one state may have nothing in common with a person from another industry in another state who is otherwise in the same general social and economic standing. With regard to your mention of the "food shortage" in he United States, this is something that I have been hearing a lot of online but research has indicated that it does not precisely exist. What we are dealing with, and which you mention, is that there is a huge impact on food PRICES, spurred in part by bio-fuel crops and mainly by the rising cost of oil. This has been compounded by serious food shortages in poor countries and weather problems (primarily in Australia) that have affected food production in other countries. The cumulative affect is that world-wide there is an apparent shortage of food. In this country, the effect that was widely reported was that SOME warehouse stores limited the number of 20 pound bags that customers could purchase to stock up before prices rose higher. Theoretically, this was to prevent small business owners from depleting the stock in the stores which also catered to individuals. While many reactionary writers hit the web crying "rationing" or "shortage," the truth is that we do not have a shortage of rice or grains at this time in the United States. Imports are much more expensive and we are dealing with that very serious issue, and the grain reserves kept by our government are much smaller than they used to be due to a rather myopic world view held by those in charge, but our grocery stores remained heavily stocked across the nation. These are serious issues. Bio-fuel is an important subject, but an area that has been increasingly handed over to the corn industry where it simply does not belong. The corn industry is severely mishandled by our government with subsidies that support products which we either do not need (high fructose corn syrup, for instance, which has been linked as one of the biggest reasons for the huge increase in diabetes our nation has experienced) or which are not entirely sensible (ethanol which requires as much or more energy to produce than it supplies). There are also many other issues regarding bio-fuel, such as high carbon footprints, lost forests and land that is no longer being used to produce food. On the other hand, we know that oil is not the answer and so must consider bio-fuels into the equation and pursue ways to incorporate them responsibly. So far, our government has simply failed on the responsibility factor. As for politicians who relate to or truly represent us as individuals, all I can do is say that I believe a certain number of them try. No one will ever be able to appeal to all citizens so long as individual citizens look for people to meet them in their own small boxes. I think that the greater problem is actually when politicians pretend to be able to do this, and they all do this pretending. But it is disingenuous and ultimately lends credence to the notion that politicians are out of touch because too much posing leads to empty promises about problems or situations that a politician may not be able to truly relate to or understand, however small. The real trick, I think, is finding a candidate who will run with broad ideals and not pander to the small special interests along the way, knowing that independent thought still exists and that our citizens SHOULD be smart enough to look beyond the mostly conservative or sensationalized media outlets to the truth that, ultimately, unifies us all. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10274#10274 2008-05-05 15:08:25 (Jeffrey Poehlmann) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10274#10274-3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4457 Forum I am brand new into this area. I have been thinking about things for a while, and have never been much of an activist. My wife and I have been watching all the mudslinging between Hillary and Obama, and I keep coming up with the same questions: What ever happened to the candidate that is running "for the people"? I recall Howard Dean using the internet to gain popularity, and Obama is utilizing it very well, but what ever happened to the candidates running for the common person, every day person that actually feels the affects of the gas prices increasing so much? Now this issue with the food shortage, isn't it common knowledge that the gov't purchases hundreds of silos chock full of corn in case there is a shortage? But they say that there will be a shortage due to all the ethanol production - a little contradictory, isn't it? Maybe I have just totally lost my marbles or something, but I have actually been doing some light research online trying to figure out what it would take to run for president. It feels like we are always voting for the lesser of two evils, or who is going to do the least amount of damage to our country. So I figured, "what the heck" - what does it take to run, on a "average person" stance, where there is an actual voice for the common people. Someone who at the bare minimum, tries to do what is best for our country and the people. I am not a Rhodes Scholar or anything, and maybe I am just talking crazy, but shouldn't these positions, elected by the people they represent, actually be working for the people? Like I said, maybe I am crazy, but it really feels like that era has now been consumed by the almighty dollar, and who can stuff whose pockets to get a politician to support their corporations political stance. I would appreciate your thoughts, whether you're telling me I am out of my gourd, or telling me that there is actually some substance to my thoughts and views, but more input from people, the better. Thank you. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10273#10273 2008-05-02 08:26:40 (hobbes1112) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10273#10273-16216 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4457 Forum There is one truth that arises from any and all possible "cold truths" listed, and that is that we desire to be a democratic mass. There is plenty of grey when it comes to issues.... the only grey each of us ever encounters is when that of a majority, be it gov't or peers, goes against that which we deem correct. Depending on the severity of that discrepancy, we either go along with the group or strike out on our own in search of a group we can identify more with. We all know right and wrong, yet that grey exists. I am now putting on my idealistic dunce cap..... loose fit but it makes me look taller. As I have mentioned before in posts, we as Americans deserve the right to speak out and do have that right, but we also deserve the right to vote personally on issues. We still need representation, but crucial aspects to our American way of life should be decided by us as a people. It should be decided by the masses, with each voice counting. I would accept decisions made by my countrymen and women, despite my disapproval, but only if it is representative of their wishes as a group. The democrat from Texas, or the republican from Utah, and the independent from Arkansas do not create our society, we do. They merely assist in the shaping and delegation of power. We need to celebrate those leaders of this country that exemplify integrity and morals and character... who still believe that being a good person supercedes all else. We need to shake fingers at those who do not do such. The American people have been governed by an entity in itself. The government. We need it to be an extension of us and not a controlling group of financially blessed individuals. Maybe we should simply insist all government officials wear dunce caps... humility is always a good thing... except of course when it is a bad thing. Damn that grey area again. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10272#10272 2008-04-28 19:25:55 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10272#10272-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum With economic status primarily in mind, it is time for both WW2 losers--Germany and Japan--to be added to the permanent membership of the UN security council. Both countries have been major successes over the last six decades and deserve the opportunity to represent the world. India must be given consideration in the future, if it can show some willingness to fight poverty and increase regional diplomacy. Perhaps Brazil will be the first Latin American country to join permanent membership, granting that their rapid economic progress continues. Germany and Japan would certainly be U.S. allies on the council, and it would do wonders for our reputation around the world for the U.S. to initiate this broadening of representation. As for the UDHR, Turing is correct in pointing out the stark disagreement about the nature of basic human rights. The Western view focuses primarily on negative, political rights such as freedom of speech, expression, religion, etc. In contrast, the rest of the world sees human rights in a positive, social sense. Examples would include the right to healthcare, education, housing, etc. Moving beyond this fundamental disagreement is not going to happen any time soon. It would be better to simply agree to disagree and perhaps explore some 'non-universal,' regional agreements on human rights. For example, the UK will not agree with Saudi Arabia on human rights, but they probably would agree closely with the rest of Europe. Therefore, where partnerships can be made and actually respected, they should be made. If it's not possible to draft a realistic UDHR, no worries. Maybe the UN shouldn't try to go beyond the basics of fighting genocide and keeping/building peace. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10271#10271 2008-04-24 14:36:48 (mr. clay) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10271#10271-15997 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=623 Forum Okay... this is one of those situations that could quickly degrade because it appears set up to incite and is relatively crude in its broad approach to each topic. Of course, we must ALWAYS remember that there are shades of grey involved in each of these issues. Certainly, good things often result from bad situations just as evil acts may result in positive results. Does this mean that the end always justifies the means? I think that this is a great way to justify questionable behavior, but it is often merely rationalization after the fact where there is no way to know whether the same or even better results may have come from an entirely different approach. 1. Just because something sometimes works does not mean it is either the only thing that works or that it should be an accepted practice. That said, there are extreme circumstances that may arise in which it would be difficult to condemn an interrogator for using torture — this is a very sensitive area, especially because there is little that could excuse the torture of an innocent individual. And, since it has been shown that often information obtained under physical or psychologically distressing circumstances is fabricated or false, torture cannot actually be said to be a practical means of gathering intelligence. Everything learned under such circumstances must be considered to have been coerced and therefore is suspect. 2. We know, for example, that progress in this country was very strong without slaves and that slavery in the south in fact contributed to economic disparity rather than general progress for society. I can't find a single example where slavery can be proven to have been necessary for human progress. 3. This is theory, but also vague. Certainly, outsourcing is good some of the time for some people and it is also bad some of the time for some people. Where this comes to relate to our broader society is going to vary dramatically from product to product. Outsourcing automotive manufacturing, for example, has had a huge negative effect on jobs that has probably never been offset by dramatically cheaper vehicles. Outsourcing of some types of jobs may well be detrimental to our society as a whole because of a "brain drain" or putting security concerns into foreign hands. Still, most consumers appreciate inexpensive goods, even though the ever-increasing health risks hidden in everything from plastic goods to medications are broadening awareness of an often ignored byproduct of outsourcing. 4. This is the sort of point that doesn't really have any true right or wrong answer that will work all the time. I know personally of several situations where a child that I am certain Freetrader would have included in the "severely-deformed" category have been given lives that, while not perfect by most people's expectations, have fulfilled purposes and increased the amount of love in the world. It is not my place to say that those children should have been "spared" the lives they lived, nor that their caretakers should have been spared the responsibility of their caretaking. In truth, all the lives involved were richer as a result. If this section were re-defined to indicate that the child would be unable to survive without artificial means, be brain dead and / or in constant pain for any time it was forced to remain alive, then I would be quicker to sign on to this line of reasoning. Lacking those specifics, I think it should be relegated to the issue of abortion rights. 5. Not everyone says they are against it. That is a ridiculous statement. Obviously there are instances where these things are acceptable to the people involved and are probably welcomed by them, if begrudgingly. When mercy is exercised, I suspect more people than not are in favor of the option. 6. This is nonsense. You could calculate that the total dollar amount spent in media related to the 9/11 attacks might exceed the amount of money paid by our government to the families of the victims of the attack, but this in no way is related to the value of an individual life. If you really want to break it down, most "entertainment" has no intrinsic value whatsoever. This especially includes most of what is on television and in the movies, though unquestionably it also includes a great deal of what we find on the Internet. Material damage aside (and standing next to the pit where the Twin Towers had been offered a deep understanding of this loss), any single life lost in that attack arguably exceeded the total value of all entertainment to have been derived from the attack. 7. Since "imperialism" is merely the policy of extending a country's power through the use of diplomacy or military force, it really makes me wonder what the point of this statement is. Sure, using diplomacy to increase a country's influence might well be a great thing, especially if that influence is used to benefit all countries involved. Imperialism in the sense of invading another country for oil probably does far more harm than good across the board. Being able to distinguish the good from the bad in the results of imperialistic actions is part of what an honest history important. One thing I would very much like to caution against is the belief that these sorts of issues can always be boiled down to a "cold truth." A more honest approach is to realize that people have widely ranging belief systems and that "truth" is intrinsically tied to "belief" for most people to the point that they cannot distinguish between the two. More accurately, people cannot distinguish between "belief" and "knowledge." However, what we are discussing here leads to a blurring of "knowledge" and "truth." We will not be able to have real open discussion on these types of topics as long as there is dogmatic belief in what is the right or wrong side of them by any party involved. That is to say, only when we recognize that there are multiple valid perspectives can a true dialogue take place. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10270#10270 2008-04-19 23:49:16 (Jeffrey Poehlmann) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10270#10270-3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum 1. Torture, REAL torture, should only be practised on KNOWN war criminals. However I agree that in that case we should in fact torture. 2. It depends on how you define slavery. Labor derived from war criminals is not slavery, but was necessary to recoup the losses in nations that were constantly attacked. Labor derived from people who had not done anything to you is unacceptable. For example, the entire slave culture after the American Revolution but before the Civil War was a violation of the rights of the people who were enslaved. 3. I have no problems with this. 4. By severely deformed, do you mean they couldn't possibly live? Or merely that they looked ugly? First, it is not right to give up on what can technically be classified as human, even if you don't think it will live, unless it can be shown that they are undergoing such pain that infantacide would be merciful. Second, I seriously doubt you're arguing that ugly babies should be killed so I won't comment. 5. I've already talked about infantacide but while I agree most people don't want to change euthanasia there is no evidence that it is wrong. If someone has written a living will, or if they have not but their loved one(s) know that's how they would have wanted it, it's perfectly moral and should be legal. 6. Nothing exceeds the value of human life, because human life is paramount. 7. Define imperialism. There are so many different things that could be considered imperialism that I cannot possibly argue for or against them all. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10269#10269 2008-04-19 14:14:46 (Starblade) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10269#10269-101 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum We need to do an experiment, or exploration, into the question of whether a society can function successfully without relying on any lies or falsehoods as part of its core principles. In other words, whether a successful society requires some fundamental white lies in order to sustain itself, or whether it could eliminate all lies and commit itself to always telling the truth, no matter what, and yet still survive. Here are a list of cold truths which our current society seems to be unable to accept. If we were to commit to the cold truth, we would have to accept the following: 1. Torture sometimes works and is a practical means to obtain needed information in some cases of crime prevention and prosecuting a war. 2. Slavery was necessary during some periods of history in order for human progress to take place. 3. Outsourcing is usually good for the economy, and when it is not good, normal market mechanisms make the necessary corrections and penalize those who made the wrong choices. 4. Infanticide is appropriate in cases of severely-deformed infants. 5. Our society already practices some infanticide and euthanasia of terminal patients, and most people don't want to change this, although everyone says they're against it. 6. The 9-11 attack contributed much entertainment value to our society, and arguably the total dollar value of this entertainment, if it could be calculated, might even exceed that of the lives lost and material damage. 7. Imperialism is not always bad, but has also contributed much good to human society, and the benefits in some cases probably outweigh the harm. Would someone like to add more examples to this list? Any real effort to eliminate falsehoods and commit to the truth in all cases would have to realistically face issues like the above. But it doesn't look like very many people want to take a sober look at any of the above topics. Does anyone disagree with any of the above listed examples of cold truth? If the experiment or exploration into cold truth is to take place, the first step would be to debate examples such as those listed above. If no such debate takes place, it means our society is just too squeemish to ever be able to function without its white lies. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10268#10268 2008-04-15 12:53:15 (freetrader) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10268#10268-38 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum I think the topic of animal rights is as much a fore-front topic as that of human rights. I know it is a popular belief that humans are the "all-get-out" tops of evolution, but it is simply a matter of respect concerning all life. As I have always believed, living involves a certain amount of destruction. We need to power our bodies and go places and find ways to amuse ourselves. Most all of these result in destruction, whether it be the flesh of animals, the burning of fuel and its harmful effects on the atmosphere, or the result of our footsteps simply walking a trail on a hike, causing a minor amount of erosion or the destruction of ant homes. To live is to destroy. The key is to have a respect for all things. Let's talk eats. Horse meat is meat. Of course, the idea of feasting on dog is considered taboo by Americans. We have all had some sort of relationship with a dog, be it as a pet, a neighbor's pet, or many shows that stress the dog-man relationship. Horses have had a similar history; however, the bond has not taken the same route.... a trip back to the old west may prove different, as horses ruled the terrain. We can teach both horse and dog to obey us, but we don't seem to offer the same respect to both animals. I am a believer in simplicity. I accept that life is an ever-changing thing and out of my control. I am one willing to live and let the world live too. Easy to say and subject to countless hypocracy. Animal testing needs to be done away with. It leads to medicine and better lives for humans, but it is simply cruel. Truth is truth. Cows for food.... simply cruel, but I am not giving up burgers. I am a hypocrit. Where is the balance? Maybe it resides in essentials? I need to eat, but I do not need to know the physical effects of drugs on rats since I am a primate. All in all, the topic is changed by proximity. A dog exists at my side, even sleeping on the corner of my bed. Rats don't. A horse is a noble animal, but I do not have to worry about it pooping on my livingroom carpet. It all matters in respect to us as humans. If we as humans are going to come to the conclusion that we are the power and that all other life forms are subject to our rule, and thereby that we have the right to this world above them, then we must establish a rationality and respect for our power. We are all taught to be good people. We are taught to be generous and merciful. Pain eased with the payment of pain caused is not an equating equation. To assume control over life is to assume the preservation of it also. No answers here. I have nothing to offer. I do like the introduction of this topic as it is very necessary. If we cannot respect the life that we deem to preside over, then where is our basis for efforts concerning human rights? Thanks for reading this pointless babble. Good boy... sit, sit... here's your treat. James http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10266#10266 2008-03-29 22:22:15 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10266#10266-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4455 Forum Mr. Poehlmann, You convey my thoughts exactly. Is there a remedy for installing the truthful ways back to popularity? Or, are we as a nation just looking for a "yes-man" government to make us feel warm and fuzzy? I particularly despise the government agencies whose heads are allowed to slash and cut and edit reports submitted by unbiased reviewers. The report concerning global warming presented on 60 Minutes comes to mind, although that was a time back. Why is this being done? Does the government see the truth as a threat? I am once again curious of your opinion (better get used to this from me).... Is the current government an extension of its people, or is it an entity all in itself now? Have we lived under an entity now for many years, so many years that it is not able to be reversed? Pride definitely resides with truth. If it was evident that this nation did wrong, I believe its people would admit the wrong.... can't answer that in respect to the leaders of the country. It is far more noble to be wrong and take steps to correct past action or policies or words than simply white-wash things and hide behind a false pride or slogan. We need to learn to be proud of Americans and not America as an idolic figure. James http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10265#10265 2008-03-29 21:18:10 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10265#10265-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum I am not entirely sure where this is going to fit in terms of political discussion, but it is related to a long interaction on the Wiki over a platform proposal dealing with animal rights. Bearing that in mind, I'm going to weigh in slightly here. To begin this discussion, one would need to know your actual position on breeding horses for food any why that may be different from breeding cows or pigs, etc. Then we must understand whether that is the actual intent of the breeders in question. Is it morally wrong to breed horses who are allowed to roam freely with the intent to sell them for slaughter? I've seen it argued that pigs are more intelligent than dogs, yet we do not have an uprising in this country to save them from becoming bacon or a holiday ham, though the thought of a dog being served up in stew becomes immediately emotional for, I would guess, most of us. This is more of a cultural bias than anything else. In much of Europe, horse meat can be easily found on the menu in restaurants. Personally, I applaud you for running a horse rescue. I believe that there is a lot of animal abuse in this country and it is important that we have people who are looking out for that. Your argument about being too lazy to castrate the stud horses — I am assuming your argument really is based on laziness being the obstacle from the way you word it — does not seem to me to hold up well. First of all, taking care of more horses and the associated costs of doing so, not to mention the risk of putting the mares through the pregnancy, seem to far outweigh any inconvenience of castration. I think that there must be a reason for keeping the stud horses able to breed, and that most likely would be an economical one. If the horses are meant to be studs, then the mere fact that they are fenced in with mares indicates a desire by their owners for breeding to occur, not letting it happen as an oversight like you suggest. This would then indicate a probability that the reason for this is to sell the offspring for a profit. I am not clear on the market for horses, but it sounds like these are being sold for either pets or meat with no discrimination by the sellers. What we are then dealing with is a question, as I suggested above, about whether this issue is about the ability of an animal's owner to breed the animals as they see fit, or whether it is about the fate of the animals after being sold. Michael Moore weighed in on this in his films "Roger and Me" and it's sequel "Pets or Meat," using rabbits as the animal, though he showed this as a reflection of what harsh economic situations can lead to for people looking to make a living off of what little they have control of. How this differs from a family farm selling their pigs or sheep as either pets or food is difficult to ascertain without more information on the treatment of the animals. (I would also recommend viewing "Fast Food Nation" by Richard Linkletter if you have a strong stomach — I know first-hand that much of the information in the fictional movie is based on fact.) We all know that glue and gelatin have traditionally been made as horse and cow byproducts and I recall reading that horse meat was for a long time used as a staple of dog food. Where should the lines be drawn in terms of animal usage in our society? Where do animals belong on the food chain and what standards or practices should be in place to control what goes where and how? How is hunting wild game different from buying domesticated animals for food? http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10264#10264 2008-03-25 13:25:53 (Jeffrey Poehlmann) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10264#10264-3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4455 Forum My name is Kairi_Hearts and I have a horse rescue in Hastings, Nebraska. We go to auctions and everything else and I am tired of seeing this all of the time. People will have too many stud horses on their property and allow them to mount their mares... Eventually they have too many horses (because they won't just castrate them) and take them to sell barns where they are sold to the meat market. All because they won't pay the money to have the stallions fixed... Am I the only one to see the horribleness of this? http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10263#10263 2008-03-25 11:02:50 (Kairi_Hearts) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10263#10263-15452 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4455 Forum I've written extensively over the years about the need to have good stewardship of our resources, so searching through the site here should bring up a few of my thoughts. However, I want to address a couple of points raised here. First, I am appalled by how much junk mail I still receive. It is not simply the regular postal mail, either; there are endless pamphlets and fliers left on my doorstep or tossed on the driveway in plastic bags. To me, this is nothing more than litter and I would like to see it treated as such, complete with a requisite fine. It is not really possible to remove the free speech of an advertiser who wishes to mail something to you, though I do believe that mail sent to an address should be specifically targeted to the recipient and that commercial mail sent to "resident" should be curtailed. I also believe that the selling and trading of personal addresses should not be legal. I get tons of catalogues I never requested and have found it tiresome, time consuming and ultimately pointless to try tracking down where my address was getting sold from. Most searches run into dead ends at some point, and by the time a source is uncovered it is too late to prevent the information from having gone out to a dozen new places that will simply turn around and sell it again before you find them. As for the protection of trees versus the jobs that may be lost, there are solutions for that in the short term, as well. The notion of tree farming was raised, and tree farms to exist, but there are many other materials out there that can be used for paper production besides trees; these include hemp, grass and bamboo, not to mention many biological waste products. I do not know what the relative costs are for the alternative materials, but I do know that requiring all advertising material to be printed on something other than wood pulp based paper and using completely earth-friendly and non-toxic inks would go a long way toward both cutting back on the junk and also kick-starting new industries. We cannot force people to go electronic, it would not be practical now for the still dominant section of the population that does not live a completely digital lifestyle, certainly not for most of rural America, and it would never be fully embraced by legitimate advertisers who know that a glut of junk email will just mean it is less likely their ad will be read. So, what should be focused on? Encouraging alternative and sustainable sources of the raw materials needed for paper is a start. Preserving our limited forests is essential. Regulating junk advertising would be a strong next step. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10262#10262 2008-03-24 13:51:32 (Jeffrey Poehlmann) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10262#10262-3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4454 Forum There is a difference between thoughtless flag waving and having pride in a system one truly believes in. The more one knows and the more one feels involved, the more meaningful such pride becomes. There is no real truth for most people behind the slogan, "proud to be an American." Where does that pride come from? Possibly it would be a true statement for an immigrant who had to work hard for citizenship and therefore would have some reason for that pride. For most of us, it should be "lucky to be an American." Without an invested effort in something, there is no pride to be had. Propaganda is a dangerous tool, it is first and foremost what enabled the Nazis to come to power in Germany and the fascists in Italy. It can be used for good, but the very nature of propaganda is a lie. It is the spreading of a narrow message through subversive means, which may or may not incorporate the truth or the greater good. Propaganda, by definition, is usually derogatory and is often misleading or false information. We know our leaders use propaganda all the time to raise support for their causes, just look at the information used to convince people that we needed to go to war in Iraq and later to convince people that we were having rapid success with that war. Unless the State controls both the media and education, most propaganda will be exposed for what it is over a short period of time; right now, we are fortunate enough that there is both diversity in our education and our media is still predominantly independent (at least from government control, if not corporate bias). Should we glorify our country and its past? Certainly, within the confines of the truth, there is plenty of room to do that. Why else have parades and holidays set aside for this sort of thing? But such time should also be used to reflect upon how to make this country even better and lead to a stronger and more just future. Without the truth about the past, there is no roadmap for progress. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10261#10261 2008-03-24 13:32:12 (Jeffrey Poehlmann) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10261#10261-3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum In reading responses to the topic of campaign and election reform, I think a solid stance is already present within The Third Party. We deserve to have a popular vote rule and do away with the current electoral system. A popular vote is a vote of the people while an electoral vote equates to a vote of localization. To divide us into stately segments is to create an uncertainty of decision and one pressured by our peer states. A few states lead in voting and other states respond. Candidates play regions like theaters, knowing where and when to put on the best performance, or simply avoiding it altogether as the result is inevitable. To vote popular is to vote individualistically and American, to dissuade influence and vote according to conscience. Mickey Mouse cannot be president, nor will the American people, educated be many and willful be all, ever wholeheartedly elect a president on the basis of humour or on the basis of fad. We should trust the American nation to put forth its choice and name its governing head. To distrust the steadfast being of America, its people, is to succumb to powers other than the democracy we state to hold dear to our nature and identity. Rise, head to the ballot box, take pen in hand, and mark down your choice upon an open, empty ballot. If you do not know who the nation is leaning toward without seeing their name, then you should probably simply step away from the process altogether. Write down your choice, and do this not based on the population of your state, but in an act devoted to what may be crucial to American success. A voice is a voice. A president is a person and an American, just like you. If he or she has somebody who provides their written or verbal addresses to the nation of people, make it known so that we can side-step them and vote for the thinker of governing ideas. We want a thinking leader who upholds our ideals, and not an idle idol. James http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10260#10260 2008-03-23 21:53:18 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10260#10260-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=520 Forum Things purely natural MUST keep up with the changing climate. We are natural in essence, although we hide behind a veil of technology. I agree with the fact we should use tree farm practices. To use trees like a crop and to sustain our consumption of them is vital and a sound practice. Also, and respective to tree farming, the act of biological engineering to create a more useful and greater surplus of material would be a proactive way to not only aid the planet by stopping over-consumption, but in addition help create a stable "crop" that would better sustain future generations consisting of larger and more consumptuous populations. An important factor, however, is that trees are as essential to the planet as we are. We cannot exist without their ability to purify our planet and give forth the needed oxygen we require. Trees are a plentiful and precious resource, but one subject to mistreatment by us. We need to protect their existence and overall necessity, for as it is, we are in control of the planet and its future. Shouldn't we simply cut out wasteful practices altogether? We are quickly becoming an eletronic society, so why not jump forward and commit to that trend? I think that this subject should be a key concern for The Third Party, as should all environmental platforms. The Third Party should definitely be "green" in its constitution. James http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10259#10259 2008-03-23 21:05:04 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10259#10259-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4454 Forum Let's face it, things purely natural in origin cannot keep up with our rapidly changing climate. Why should they? Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. That doesn't mean we don't have to take care of the planet but the least we could do is not sacrifice ourselves in the process. The easiest way to fix the tree situation is to use tree farms for wood and paper, possibly even genetically engineering the trees that we plant. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10258#10258 2008-03-23 03:34:47 (TuringAI) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10258#10258-14513 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4454 Forum We CAN have both truth and pride. All we gotta do is... *Harmonica.* http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10257#10257 2008-03-23 03:26:18 (TuringAI) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10257#10257-14513 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum I am curious to know what 3rd Party members think about the consequences of promoting tree conservation as it directly affects the capitalistic society of America; particularly, the use of paper product in regard to communication. To open a mailbox in America is to open a container that is filled with a mass of printed material, one that more-or-less is unwanted and disregarded by the majority of the population. Why bother with the cycle if it is wasteful? Tree conservation is a topic that can and will effect America if measures are taken. The plus is unwasted energies. Not only do we rule-out the need of cutting the trees, but also the transportation, refinement, and distribution of the products associated with the first act of cutting. To simply do away with the advetising aspect of our nation, paper use would be cut back to a meager level compared to what it is now, in my opinion. I am not propsing we stunt the act of "putting your product out there," but rather am asking that perhaps it might be better overall if we mandate an electronic method of advertising. Pardon me while I duck stones here.... I am fully aware of the jobs/money lost. The loss to the postal service alone would be a significant amount. It may result in cutbacks. The loss to printing companies would be noticeable as well. And then there are the truckers. Ink producers too. How would I ever get my notification that I may have already won 1 million dollars? I guess I would pay the price too. It all seems very wasteful and unnecessary to me. Am I alone? Do we take a stance and decide that the effects on the earth outweigh the need to advertise? I think it is beneficial based on energy use alone. This is a topic of debate for sure. Would the politicians really be affected if instead of seeing their printed name 20 times over on a stretch of road, I saw it every day in my bulk mail? Opinions vary. It isn't about trees until there gone or minimalized.... and FYI.... they say the same thing about us humans. Sound off. James http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10256#10256 2008-03-22 22:28:50 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10256#10256-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4454 Forum I was not proposing anything persay, but I do admit to a mindful wonderment concerning what the countries ability of propaganda should be. Are we a nation that should glorify ourselves in the context of historical events? Or, should we state what is true and accurate and live by it? This country is a great nation, despite the fact we do not always make perfect choices or are the leader in the preservation of freedom. Pride is a necessary element in the formation of a national pride and awareness and continuation, but is it subject to tipping the scales to put a nation on a pedestal so that its members are to consider itself a dominant force in the shaping the world? http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10255#10255 2008-03-22 20:50:52 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10255#10255-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum The problem with requiring people to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may lie within the document itself. For example, what makes something a right? Is there a right to own a gun? Is there a right to be supplied a home by the government if one cannot afford it otherwise? Perhaps we need a new UDHR. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10254#10254 2008-03-19 04:08:59 (TuringAI) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10254#10254-14513 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=623 Forum I'm not quite sure what you are proposing, but I will say this much: I believe that exposing the flaws in the system encourages learning. Letting students know that change is possible, that the status-quo is not always right and that our national heroes were real people makes history more interesting and accessible and it inspires debate. The end result is that we have more active minds and more over-all interest in the learning process. More importantly, we also have a broader understanding of the truth, which is one basic goal of education in the first place. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10253#10253 2008-03-17 14:56:12 (Jeffrey Poehlmann) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10253#10253-3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum I have looked into this numerous times over the years and have never seen any statistics to support the claim that abortion is used as "a birth control of convenience" in this country. Let's be honest: for most women, having an abortion is traumatic and certainly inconvenient. It is rarely, if ever, a first choice scenario. James raises an important issue in that the best way to combat abortion is to work on creating a society where there are simply fewer unwanted pregnancies. This is largely an education issue, although it also has a lot to do with fostering a society that does not breed sexual predators (or fails to protect its citizens from them). Outlawing or banning abortion is never going to be the solution; such actions in history have always had one common result: unsafe and illegal abortion rates rise dramatically out of desperation. The G. W. Bush administration's policy of preaching abstinence has been a colossal failure and a missed opportunity for providing true sex education. Our nation has dumbed itself down so much by clinging to dogma that a whole generation has suffered. Too many kids are disconnected from their world, lacking in responsibility both to themselves and to those around them. As a society we have a lot of work to do to bring individual responsibility back to the forefront. I do not mean this in a Libertarian sense, so much; I still feel very strongly that the central government needs to take a role in social affairs in order to help those who truly need it. But the government should never be responsible for setting up a smoke screen like the Bush administration has that allows persons who feel morally superior to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that everything is improving as long as we don't talk about it. Whether or not Roe vs Wade "gave" women the right to choose, they already were able to make that choice if they were willing to face the consequences. More often than not, the consequences were health related, not criminal, and there is not sufficient proof that abortions have dramatically increased as a result of them being legal, though deaths of the mothers certainly have decreased. It is naive, arrogant and downright wrong for anyone who has not been in the position of a woman seeking an abortion to pretend that he or she knows what it feels like or what the personal toll is to have an abortion. And anyone who is going to claim moral superiority in this area better think twice before condemning others because acting morally superior is easy while wrestling with the issue of aborting a child never is. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10252#10252 2008-03-17 14:51:35 (Jeffrey Poehlmann) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10252#10252-3 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4452 Forum Seeing that there are no current posts under the "education" topic, I figured I would fire the first spit-ball and see what happens. I wondered what the opinion of Third Party members is concerning the exactness of educational material. Most people have gone through public school systems and received a comprehensive education designed to cover a broad number of areas. I feel education, overall, is respectable in most parts of the country. There are those that fall short, for sure, but on the whole, one cannot usually deny that if one is willing to learn, that will is afforded them. My question centers on the use of a national propaganda? Does it have a place in the educational system? Is it necessary to install a sense of pride within the minds of chidren? Are white lies acceptable if they push us forth toward a more conceived national awareness? As we get older we become aware of faults of character and action within the country, but should those faults be made known to young minds? Anxious to hear thoughts. Load up them straws and let the spit-balls fly. James http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10251#10251 2008-03-16 21:34:47 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10251#10251-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4453 Forum Joebialek, I personally agree with your thoughts. I feel snuffing out a life is not acceptable and I find it to be a moral outrage. I still believe the fact that it is a decision for the mothers of the American nation to decide overall. I would be surprised and saddened if the result of a national vote came back in favor of abortion, yet I would abide by the democratic desire. Abortion is like gun control in that those who want to go ahead with having an abortion or obtaining an illegal firearm will have no problem. It is the individual who is responsible for actions. We cannot stop individuals from doing what they ultimately want to do due to our want of freedoms.... abortion will always exist, drugs will always exist, terrorism will always exist.... all of these are due to people and their disregard of that which is good and just. I am curious to know what your opinion is concerning how to promote more responsible Americans? Any thoughts? It is a very difficult subject to contemplate and solve, but it is definitely something that needs discussion. Children growing up in this country are becoming more and more distant from responsibility in my opinion, concerning both themselves and other members of society, and in many respects, from drug use to debt issues. Hopefully, this party can construct a platform that results in a respect of both the individual and that individuals place within the nation. James http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10250#10250 2008-03-16 21:12:43 (JAMES) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10250#10250-14925 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4452 Forum On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion. Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction. http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10249#10249 2008-03-16 20:06:06 (JOEBIALEK) http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/index.php?c=2 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/viewtopic.php?p=10249#10249-247 http://3rdparty.org/conventionfloor/posting.php?mode=reply&t=4452