[sauropod]

Some of us "third party" types are not "conspiracy theorists" nor "ad hominem attackers" (at least w/o provocation :-). I voted for CP the last two presidential elections because of principle, mainly (after having read the platforms).

This year, the CP choice is calling the war in Iraq "unconstituional," (it was not.) hence, I am voting GOP this time. This one stance by Peroutka proves to me that he is not a serious candidate.

I hope FR does not go down the path of banishing folks that are civil third party types here. I believe the political debate is healthier if they are included. 'Pod.

[onyx]

Pod, you have been here longer than most of us.
You know civil discourse is always welocme.
Jim just realizes what everyone ought to realize:

Election '04 is between Bush and the democrat.

[Bob J]

I have plenty of Libertarian and Constitutional Party friends (If my memory serves, Jim supports much of what the CP stands for). I think there is plenty in the planks of both that most here would agree on.

I've got more a problem with how some of their supporters advance their cause. Rather than explaining their positions and why they are superior to the pubs, they spend 90% of their time attacking them, then attacking anyone who remotely looks like they support the GOP. IMHO, it is not a strategy for winning anyones heart or mind.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I hope FR does not go down the path of banishing folks that are civil third party types here.

I don't think they will. I am not a fan of third parties because I have seen the damage they can cause and I think that they would be far better served if they joined the party closest to their beliefs and worked to change their platform. But I do see the point in many of their arguments even if I don't totally agree with method, timing or how far it should be taken.

Those who worry me are the, "Let's trash it all so we can have another revolution!" bunch. I often wonder if they know how much like 60's radicals they sound.