A vote is a statement. When you vote for a party you support them, say "these guys are cool you should follow what they say". It doesn't matter WHAT POWER THEY GET AFTERWARDS. Whoever gets in afterwards will have less sway because they don't get such an absurd amount of voters bias, they're less sure of the support they have in the decisions they make and they have to at least offer obeisance to the satellite, lesser parties because people are showing that they'd rather those idylls than those proposed by the party with plurality.

THERE WILL NOT BE A MAJOR SHIFT IN THE POLITICAL PARTIES UNTIL THE PETTY SHEEP REALISE THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE FLOCK. A vote made (even to spoil the paper) is never a vote wasted. A vote made to a party that doesn't best represent your ideals and ethics is a lie, a wasted vote and a massive ****ing spanner in the works when it comes to the idea that the Government is there to represent the people; the Government cannot possibly know what the people want.

Using this line of thought there can only ever be two parties because I vote for any of the others is always wasted. Just because something isn't popular, or is even just not well known at all doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for it, support, and try to spread that general message.
But the party that best suits me isn't democratic or republican, so I won't vote for either. I'll vote for the party that actually does appeal to me.

The war on terror began when terrorists declared war on the United States. If you choose to ignore the 8 attacks that happened during the Clinton presidency you still must take into account the attack on a U.S. warship which in itself is an act of war that was all but ignored. There is also the U.S. retreat from Somalia after one one battle was lost. This showed them that we would tuck our tail and run when things got bad. When we took the war to them we took a stand that we should have never stepped down from.

I don't understand your logic. You say it's Clinton's fault the country is messed up for not acting yet Bush did act and look where we are now.

More baffling is that it's Clinton's fault that we're in a war because we were attacked first according to his post.

You are both right and I apologize for my statement about throwing away a vote. There is no vote that is thrown away (unless you vote for micky mouse).
My political views fall in line with the republican party. That is why I vote for them. A vote alone is not going to evoke a change. I see what you are saying about voting outside the major parties. A vote alone is not going to change anything. This is petty sheep thinking. Stand up and make your voice heard. That will make a change. Make other people believe in what you do. Calling them sheep and morons isn't going to do anything.

Explain please.

Can you just say what you think rather than leaving me to assume what you are talking about. Please explain where we are now.

Sure thing.

It seems to imply that we were attacked because of Clinton's presidency. Which in a way is sort of like blaming a dead cat for starving after someone denied it food.

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Clinton didn't invade Afghanistan. Clinton isn't to blame for us going to War.

No, we were attacked during Clinton's presidency. This should have been handled by the Commander In Chief at the time.

We were at war before Bush took office. Again I will state that an attack on a U.S. warship, the U.S.S. Cole, was an act of war. The 2 attacks of U.S. embassies was an attack on U.S. soil. The first attack on the WTC. An act of war on U.S. soil. All 3 of these were all but ignored. Choosing to ignore the fact that we were at war before opened the door for the attacks on September 11th. This act of war was not ignored. We have not tucked our tails and run from this one.

Is it even technically a war if one group is being totally ignored by the other?