The two parties of Yes and No

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

The two parties of Yes and No

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The two parties of Yes and No

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The two parties of Yes and No - 5/3/2009 7:19:08 AM

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

It's too easy to be a Democrat or a Republican today.

If you're a Democrat, you demonize Bush and everything he did, and support Obama.

If you're a Republican, you demonize Obama and everything he did (and you expect him to do) and claim that Bush was a success.

Folks, this is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they founded this nation. They assumed an informed and active citizenry, and a government that listened to the people. Not Monday Morning Quarterbacks that sit back while the President acts unopposed, then critique him.

/end rant/

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/3/2009 7:24:58 AM

Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline

Dark,

I see glimmers of hope. The GOP is starting to make noises like it's realizing that being a hated, extremist party may not be the way to go. The Dems are already on the path to being centrist. Eventually, once the republicans give their asshole "spokesmen" the airlock, things will improve.

As things are, if just a few of them were to break away, and form a new, moderate political party, they would stand to capture a HUGE portion of the electorate. People on both sides (self included) are really tired of the hardline partisanship. But I can tell you that the splinter party that McCain is starting up, aint it...

(in reply to DarkSteven)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/3/2009 7:32:54 AM

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

Yep.

I have a fondness for Ron Paul. Would I really want him in office? That is another question left to another time.

But in his book he pointed out that many of the more important issues/questions/potential solutions are not even allowed to see the light of day by either of the major parties, or by the mainstream media.

An informed and active citizenry was considered to be a crucial element by the founders. I think if they were alive today they would roll over in their graves at the paltry level of knowledge and activism that most citizens demonstrate.

Franklin was purported to have been asked as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, and to have responded, "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government did you give us?" "A republic madame, if you can keep it."

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to DarkSteven)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/3/2009 8:16:14 AM

Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline

Yep...I heard that too, about what Franklin's response was. Someone posted that link on here and I found it very educational for me, as to what parties were and what they stood for. I agree that there is way too much arguing between the two parties. Sometimes I don't even think people think about whats important to them. They'll allow themselves to be twisted and turned 'for the sake of the party'...not for the sake of themselves. Seems we just like to disagree. Take a look around at these forums. For one thing any person has to say someone will counter it with their point of view. I think that though, is part of the American philosophy. Not to counter everything everyone has to say, but to be able to voice your own opinion. In my opinion though, we should be listening first to the cause, and how it helps (the individual), then to their party. And too, maybe the parties would have more integrity if they knew we weren't so easy to sell over?

Maybe the Libertarians have something here. Maybe the Independants do, too.

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to UncleNasty)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/3/2009 8:32:39 AM

Posts: 894
Joined: 12/17/2008
Status: offline

Second the motion on Ron Paul. Traditionally, the role of third parties to raise issues to the attention of the public, and thus, the Dems and Reps, has resulted in shifts in those parties to embrace popular opinions and move to the center. Failure of the GOP to evolve has resulted in their current state. The Democrats are having some success in spite of themselves, it seems.

I see the system, in it's purest form, as having two parties dancing just apart from center, with issue-centric parties like Libertarians and Greens moving the center point around, exacting responses from the major parties. The fixation on personalities and boxer/brief lines of questioning seem to be like a distracting hand wave by a magician.

yours

_____________________________

May your service of love a beautiful thing; want nothing else, fear nothing else and let love be free to become what love truly is. -- Hadewijch of Antwerp

As a rule, I don't like to make general statements.

(in reply to UncleNasty)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/3/2009 9:15:36 AM

Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline

One thing I'd do to help get government on track: make lobbying illegal. The only information allowed to House and Senate would be from individual people via e-mail and snail mail... (there are publicly accessible terminals in Public Libraries...so I don't buy the "but some folks don't have computers" argument.) Stop the temptation of their taking money and favors from special interests, and have them listen to "we the people" instead. Individuals have the right of free speech... but huge, multi-national corperations should STFU.

Second: link Congress' raises to the minimum wage. Sorry guys, but if you vote yourselves another fat raise, then everyone else at the bottom of the ladder gets a boost too! You think that'll hurt small business? Let's find out!

Third: every time they cut capital gains, the inheritence tax, or income taxes on the top 2% of wage earners, then they also have to give the other 98% of us something in return. Maybe it's free healthcare, or maybe it's a tax holiday, or a major reimbursement check.

Fourth: laws that make shit like Bernie Madoff, or Neil Bush and the Savings and Loan rip offs a madatory life sentence... hard time. These pricks always know what they are doing: destroying the lives of hard working Americans for a few extra bucks. If we can jail people indefinitely for just being suspected of being involved in terrorisim, I see no reason why we can't eschew the Constitution in favor of punishing people who have dome REAL damage to the US.

(in reply to YoursMistress)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/3/2009 9:50:06 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

I don't think that is the case at all... I'd bet most are neither Democrats or Republicans. Most don't have the time or inclination to be a party regular. What you hear are the extremes of each party... The ones who have nothing else to worry about.

BUT...lol... When it comes to Bush there is a lot to demonize... and at least for this time in history the majority of Americans agree.

Butch

(in reply to DarkSteven)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/7/2009 9:32:38 AM

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

FR

Welll I used to like Bush. What screwed him up in my eyes was his own actions, and that's why I supported Obama. I percieved McCain as being pretty much the same, meaning in the same pockets.

However I did not become a democrat any any way shape or form. I know I am not going to like some things in the next four years. The more seemingly major platforms of that party run against my grain. But my abandoning the republicans was not due to Bush 1 or Reagan or Nixon or whoever, it was due to the performance of Bush 2.

Part of the problem is that many have to declare themselves when voting in the primary. This is imposed by the people who REALLY run this country.

Ever think of that ? Who is running ? That is an awesome power to have and we don't even know who has it ! Just who is encouraged to run in the primaries ? Who decides that ? Who is it who didn't allow Ron Paul's name to appear on every primary ballot in this country ? No, it wasn't Bush nor Obama, nor McCain. So who was it ? Who made these rules ?

Just a comment here now : If we are to spread democracy around the world, perhaps we should have a better implementation of it don't you think ? When I was young, people used to say "Anyone can become President". You don't hear that today. The truth is just anyone can't. Why can't I be President ? I would show you some true change, of that there is no doubt.

Fact is, Ron Paul should've run for President about twenty years ago.

T

(in reply to kdsub)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/7/2009 6:03:23 PM

Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline

Term limits. I believe that the founding fathers envisioned a sort of 'citizen legislator'. Someone who came to Washington (now) and served in this capacity and then returned to home to their life to allow the next person to participate. Why we limit presidents to two terms and allow congressmen the ability to get a stranglehold on their positions for life if a total mystery to me. Make it service instead of a career and you'll see some positive changes.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/7/2009 6:36:21 PM

Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

... I think if they were alive today they would roll over in their graves...

A thoughtful post, UncleNasty... but I couldn't help giggling at the sentence above.

(in reply to UncleNasty)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/7/2009 6:58:44 PM

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

DonImus,why would you deny a constituency an opportunity to return a preferred representative to Washington.We have in place a perfect mechanism for limiting terms it is called the Ballot box.....no other stratagem is necessary for assuring any community proper representation.
Term limits are a little like throwing the baby out with the bath water.....there are some talented and well intentioned people in Washington artificially limiting their chance to have an impact is silly
All that is needed is a less apathetic electorate.....

< Message edited by slvemike4u -- 5/7/2009 7:01:14 PM >

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to TreasureKY)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/7/2009 8:10:28 PM

Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Fact is, Ron Paul should've run for President about twenty years ago.

T

He did.

1988.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/7/2009 11:31:47 PM

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"Why we limit presidents to two terms "

No that came much later. The FDR days after he stacked the supreme court.

T

(in reply to DomImus)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/8/2009 6:18:26 AM

Posts: 599
Joined: 3/31/2006
Status: offline

I would say the fight between Democrats and GOP is largely fake wrestling. Republicans pretend they protect "high morals", Democrats pretend they protect the interest of a "powerless little guy". The problem both parties face is that in difficult times people start looking at the reality: none of the ruling parties actually deliver what they promise and preach. The current result is obvious: both parties loose supporters to independents. Democrats have a temporary publicity boost thanks to Obama charismatic personality. He is not there to change the system. What can the president do anyway? When the honeymoon is over everything will settle: corporations will get saved, the public will fall deeper into debt hole.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/8/2009 10:58:13 AM

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

awm, I have been thinking about that. I don't know exactly how to respond, but fake wrestling is in the run for a good analogy. People who watch it enjoy it, and people who do it enjoy it even more (if desired ask how I know this in mail), and get paid. It does not really matter who wins.

You might have a point here.

T

(in reply to awmslave)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/8/2009 11:07:25 AM

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

DS, this is why I don't like Dems or Repubs, they're counterproductive to getting done what needs to be done in this country.
And all that back and forth childish squabbling is a total waste of time.
I certainly hope we're going to see a third and fourth party emerge in the next few years that are more in touch with what The People want done in this country.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DarkSteven)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/8/2009 1:45:54 PM

Posts: 624
Joined: 9/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

DS, this is why I don't like Dems or Repubs, they're counterproductive to getting done what needs to be done in this country.
And all that back and forth childish squabbling is a total waste of time.
I certainly hope we're going to see a third and fourth party emerge in the next few years that are more in touch with what The People want done in this country.

There is a mathematical demonstration I cant find the link to anymore that demonstrates that without proportional voting every democracy/representative republic is destined to evolve into a two party system, and once it gets there a 3rd party can never emerge. The best a 3rd party can hope to do is influence one of the two major parties.

(in reply to popeye1250)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/9/2009 11:17:13 AM

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

DS, this is why I don't like Dems or Repubs, they're counterproductive to getting done what needs to be done in this country.
And all that back and forth childish squabbling is a total waste of time.
I certainly hope we're going to see a third and fourth party emerge in the next few years that are more in touch with what The People want done in this country.

There is a mathematical demonstration I cant find the link to anymore that demonstrates that without proportional voting every democracy/representative republic is destined to evolve into a two party system, and once it gets there a 3rd party can never emerge. The best a 3rd party can hope to do is influence one of the two major parties.

Cruel, so are you saying we're doomed as a country?
From out here where I am I see a lot of disgust and exhaustion with the Dems and Repubs.
Like I say I won't throw away my vote on Dems or Repubs. When enough people get fed-up with them we'll have "Change."
Remember, it was Dems and Repubs who've gotten us $10 Trillion in debt. No other party is responsable for that.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to CruelNUnsual)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/9/2009 12:48:58 PM

Posts: 10540
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

DonImus,why would you deny a constituency an opportunity to return a preferred representative to Washington.We have in place a perfect mechanism for limiting terms it is called the Ballot box.....no other stratagem is necessary for assuring any community proper representation.
Term limits are a little like throwing the baby out with the bath water.....there are some talented and well intentioned people in Washington artificially limiting their chance to have an impact is silly
All that is needed is a less apathetic electorate.....

Because of the entrenched values of power in a career politician elected with ALL of the advantages of incumbency, that's why we need term limits. It's fine to suggest that we can kick out our own but I can't kick out yours who may be at the center of seniority and power. Term limits can be consitutionalized, rendering it a national republican political value over and above an individual value and desire...in lifetime incumbency.

As far as the founding fathers...they didn't at first recognize political parties and whereas modern political parties have come to serve certain constituencies...the parties created at the beginning were over just how the govt. power was going to first be dispensed...central 'federal' power vs. states power.

They were not divided so much over economic or social roles for parties as it was the power of the central govt. vs the power of the 'sovereign' states govts.

Simplifying...then came the idealogues and those that wanted a US Bank and the merchantilists who wanted private 'merchant' banking not central banking. It became a fight where the winner (temp.) was Andrew Jackson later branded a radical yet was probably the first and last liberatarian pres. and I claim for that reason alone and yet also claimed to be the father of the democratic party no less.

Lincoln the father of the republican party and in my view, the first and last repub. conservative pres. saw this and also disdained centralized banking and political power in the hands of the federal govt. Testimony to this political value was a federal income tax passed during the civil war to pay for it and...AND it's removal even after Lincoln's murder. The whole country believed as Lincoln..centralized power was to be left outside the economy and instead limited to justice, defense and a very limited treasury etc. and not much else.

(in reply to slvemike4u)

RE: The two parties of Yes and No - 5/9/2009 1:36:26 PM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

There are two big parties, not of yes and no, but rather:

One party of "Bull"
and the
other party of "Shit"

Interchangeable, for those that wonder which is which....

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The two parties of Yes and No

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

1.012