I know exactly what I'm voting for: "none of the above" . . .

I'm not foolish enough to believe that a switcheroo between two fixed positions is going to magically make everything all better.

But then you are foolish to be so idealistic. No one is claiming magic.

Vote D and vote for checks and balance.

Vote D, vote for science.

No, I'm being pragmatic.
An action is observed to produce a known result.
Options: repeat ad nauseum... . . . ???
Yes, a nice symbolic counter-balance on those contrived wedge issues.
Tempting, Waxman and all that.
But I don't think politics is going to restore common sense to a willfully ignorant populace.

We do need to remove the politicians who support the willfully ignorant lobby.

I think our society suffers from a lack of critical thinking that won't be solved by a battle between R and D.

It won't be solved by electing the Natural Law (replace the Air Force with yogic flyers) Party either.

The pickings aren't good in the third parties.

Of course they aren't.
There's no market for third parties because all the voters are stuck in boogey-man mode.

I'm just saying that you can't rail against "the lesser of two evils" style thinking if you end up picking someone worse.

And you can't honestly expect to get a different outcome by continuing to pick the same two evils. Can you...???

Different isn't always better.

If "the same" is guaranteed to be shit, then "different" (as in: eroding the duopoly) is guaranteed to be better (as in: a long-term strategy).

First, no it isn't. There are no such guarantees. Second, the aspects in which D&R are "the same" are only a small part of the shit, the aspects in which they are different can have a massive impact, as the past six years have shown.

In Bush v Gore, I felt much as you do, and even voted Libertarian. But Bush proved that the issues that separate D from R are much more important than those that separate D&R from L.

Idealist. We can't collapse so you can rebuild your utopian society. I dont have time for that shit. We have to work with what we have. Now.

We're at war. The current leadership pre-emptively struck, mucked the plan, (if there really was one), have racked up huge debt. Soldiers are dying and our military is stretched. We've lost habeas corpus. The Internet is about to be put under corporate control. I think there is a lesser evil. Vote D.

Boogey-man mode exists because some politicians are flagrantly lying - sound byte logic and being politically correct. And they have troops to promote flagrant and obvious lies - extremist talk radio. Worse are the so many who endorse this lying. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson. Outright lying starting with lies about a silly spy plane conflict in China, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, imposing religion in laws and upon all people, and axis of evil. Early examples of making America confrontational. It is necessary if one is a drug addict and needs $100million incomes.

Topic of this thread is Rush Limbaugh - that he is a liar. To stop confrontation, we only need to talk honestly - used facts and not Limbaugh hype. A fact that can only be disputed by using confrontation: Rush Limbaugh is a liar. He even got rich by promoting lies to 'Brown Shirts'. From the Washington Post of 25 Oct 2006: Was Limbaugh being honest? You have his promise. Did he tell the truth? If Rush does not do as he said, then he has again created confrontation ... which is how wacko extremists came to power and want from their politicians. Lies and intentionally creating confrontation is how Hitler came to power.

You have his statement. Did he only lie again?