just saw the filthy liberals thread......

[CaneBrain 97]

Wanted to throw my hat in the ring....Socko669 wrote: Who can deny that liberals are perpetually finger pointing and placing blame rather than actually talking about solutions to problems or offering innovative ideas...its always someones fault, and if the dems were elected then all problems would magically go away and everyone farts would smell like strawberries. I am not a republican nor a democrat, but it just seems like the dems are the worse when it comes to political posturing, trash talking, and finger pointing. The republicans actually do something...although what they do is often not in the best interest of all. The democrats talk a lot, but they really don't deliver much except failed government programs and rhetoric. People fail to realize that the majority of our country's problems are rooted in the mass effects of individual consumer's behaviors...not the government. Wow you have a pretty good grasp on things for a pirate. In the words of Lewis Black: Republicans are the party of bad ideas. Democrats are the party of no ideas. This is much simpler and more honest than that barnyard nonsense. What is the moral of this story class? Answer: a two-party political system is doomed to failure.

[elaear 0]

why would anyone prefer bad ideas over no ideas?

[Timdog1010 0]

Yeah! Vote for Perot!Wait, what?I think the real problem is the slander machine we've created in national politics. Between the media and the national committees of both parties there are some really powerful forces out there looking to destroy every candidate. Is it a surprise that we're having trouble finding worthy candidates to vote for? Would you sign up for that kind of scrutiny & b.s.?

[CaneBrain 97]

why would anyone prefer bad ideas over no ideas?

I dont know....thats just a lewis black quote (although I find it true and to the republicans credit at least they are trying something, right?) Then again bad ideas stink too.My theory is that a 2 party political system cannot possibly work in the long run. You will end up with half the country on either side and nothing will get done....instead you will have each half constantly trying to point out the mistakes of the other half.Basically, our political process right now is a glorified camp Color War. When Bush was re-elected, the Repubs cried "we win!" and the Dems cried "we lose!"Its not supposed to be about winning and losing. It is supposed to be about steering the country effectively while meeting the needs of all its citizens to the best of our capabilities.Under a two party system I dont see how that is possible. We have ended up with two fractured halves of a country that despise each other.....arent we all supposed to be Americans?P.S.---I will say this in defense of the liberals.....they whine too much....but its the Republican political hacks (like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, both of whom deserve a quick death IMO) who are most responsible for cultivating this divisiveness.

[Timdog1010 0]

The system will never change. And it's for the same reason we'll never have a playoff in college football. Too many powerful people have too much invested in the status quo. And they're certainly not interested in the best interests of the masses...

[JBradburn6 0]

So are you saying that a 3-party (or more) system would be better and more unifying?

[Wingmaster05 0]

why would anyone prefer bad ideas over no ideas?

So if you had to choose between someone who will make ideas (which could be right or wrong), or someone who was going to put out no ideas, you would choose guaranteed failure? I'm just trying to understand your thinking, although it's probably terrible to clump democrats with "no ideas", and repub's with "bad ideas", so this shouldn't even be a question.

[BilliardsBoy 0]

My theory is that a 2 party political system cannot possibly work in the long run. You will end up with half the country on either side and nothing will get done....instead you will have each half constantly trying to point out the mistakes of the other half.

Unfortunately, I think this has already happened. Both parties did a great job of dividing the nation the last 6 years, I hope it can change.

Basically, our political process right now is a glorified camp Color War. When Bush was re-elected, the Repubs cried "we win!" and the Dems cried "we lose!" Its not supposed to be about winning and losing. It is supposed to be about steering the country effectively while meeting the needs of all its citizens to the best of our capabilities.

Again, you hit it on the head. If I could have voted in 2K, I think I would have voted for Gore (I liked Clinton), but the disappointment wore off after a week and I got to the business at hand: supporting the President. People seem to stick with their canidate, for better or for worse, long after the last ballot has been counted and that is unfortunate. Too many ppl support Bush right now because they voted for him, and too many ppl don't support him right now because they didn't. If Kerry had been elected, I would have been ticked off, but I would have supported him and simply hoped that he would do the country good in being its leader.

Under a two party system I dont see how that is possible. We have ended up with two fractured halves of a country that despise each other.....arent we all supposed to be Americans?

Well said good sir. Just wanted to voice my approval of what you said here.I'm promising to stay out of this post tho and not get wrapped up in it. Last time I did..... well, I'm sure MK can tell you how time consuming it was, lol.

[CaneBrain 97]

So are you saying that a 3-party (or more) system would be better and more unifying?

Yes I believe the emergence of a legitimate 3rd party would be just what this country needs. Maybe even 4 parties. I am not saying this would be a panacea.....but hear me out.Basically, we moan about politicians a lot but they are very hamstrung by the 2 party system. A Republican senator cant vote against the a Bush endorsed bill.....because the Repubs would threaten to back a different candidate in his state when he was up for re-election. The politicians are so beholden to their party that they cant vote their minds. If there were multiple parties, then these politicians might have options in the face of such threats.as it is it takes a very ballsy politician to vote his mind and not his party on a consistent basis which is a shame.

[SPADES21 0]

So are you saying that a 3-party (or more) system would be better and more unifying?

shut up

[InertGrudge 0]

Go read the Federalists Papers (#10 in particular), and then get back to me.Two party systems can...and have...worked, especially in this country. Yes, things seem pretty terrible at the moment, but they always do in the heat of the moment. I'm sure if Madison came back right now, he wouldn't be so proud of the system he helped create. It's true that the political parties have become what he called 'factions' which are inevitably horrible for the union of a country. If you really believe that, then you can change it. You simply elect people who aren't like the people we have in office today.By the way, you think this is bad? The Congress, Presidency, and arguably the Supreme Court are all controlled by Republicans (or Republican-appointed members in the case of the USSC). We're still having problems. Try to run a country when different parties control the different branches.This country's system isn't perfect. I don't think it's supposed to be. I'm okay with it not being perfect. I'm a Democrat. I understand why we lost. I understand why we're still losing. And I'm mad as hell about it. So, I'm trying to change it. That's why I'm interning in Washington, DC right now. That's why I plan on running for office later on in life. That's the way to do things.If you think something is out of whack, change it.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Elaine : Oh TED! I never knew I could be so happy. These few months have been just wonderful. Tomorrow, why don't we drive up the coast to that little seafood place and . . . what's the matter???Striker : My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow, we're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 18:00 hours. We're coming in from the North, below their radar.Elaine : When will you be back?Striker : I can't tell you that? It's classified.

[CaneBrain 97]

Go read the Federalists Papers (#10 in particular), and then get back to me.Two party systems can...and have...worked, especially in this country. Yes, things seem pretty terrible at the moment, but they always do in the heat of the moment. I'm sure if Madison came back right now, he wouldn't be so proud of the system he helped create. It's true that the political parties have become what he called 'factions' which are inevitably horrible for the union of a country. If you really believe that, then you can change it. You simply elect people who aren't like the people we have in office today.By the way, you think this is bad? The Congress, Presidency, and arguably the Supreme Court are all controlled by Republicans (or Republican-appointed members in the case of the USSC). We're still having problems. Try to run a country when different parties control the different branches.This country's system isn't perfect. I don't think it's supposed to be. I'm okay with it not being perfect. I'm a Democrat. I understand why we lost. I understand why we're still losing. And I'm mad as hell about it. So, I'm trying to change it. That's why I'm interning in Washington, DC right now. That's why I plan on running for office later on in life. That's the way to do things.I monetarily and voting-wise (cant think of the right word) support candidates who I feel fit the descriptions I am looking for.For the most part they dont exist though.I applaud your efforts in changing the system.....I am going to law school....maybe someday I can be a supreme court judge instead of going your route.Of course, maybe I would be better of never having a legal career or being any kind of judge.....thats Miers' qualifications right? (sorry couldnt resist! I love how even the hardcore repubs are turning on Bush now.....like they didnt know he was a mental midget all along)If you think something is out of whack, change it.

[ChuckSty 0]

Elaine : Oh TED! I never knew I could be so happy. These few months have been just wonderful. Tomorrow' date=' why don't we drive up the coast to that little seafood place and . . . what's the matter???Striker : My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow, we're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 18:00 hours. We're coming in from the North, below their radar.Elaine : When will you be back?Striker : I can't tell you that? It's classified.[/b']****ing republican.

[CaneBrain 97]

Elaine : Oh TED! I never knew I could be so happy. These few months have been just wonderful. Tomorrow' date=' why don't we drive up the coast to that little seafood place and . . . what's the matter???Striker : My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow' date=' we're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 18:00 hours. We're coming in from the North, below their radar.Elaine : When will you be back?Striker : I can't tell you that? It's classified.[/b'']censored republican.

ok I will bite....what is the above all about? who is striker?

[Allie 0]

As an active particpant in the "Filthy Liberals" thread...I'm wondering why you didn't just continue this discussion in that thread?That aside, although I see your point about divisiveness that exists in your 2 party system....I'm curious as to what your alternative is? Dictatorship? Communism? Not sarcastic, just curious. In Canada we have several different "parties" at any given time...some fringe fruitcake stuff....with probably 3 parties with any credibility that actually get significant votes. But when the votes get spread around like that....you can, and we have, end up with "minority" governments. Which can be very deterimental to accomplishing anything. I am, admittedly, no expert on systems of government....but I know that in Canada, having several parties does not necessarily make for a more effective system.

[Wingmaster05 0]

The system will never change.  And it's for the same reason we'll never have a playoff in college football. Too many powerful people have too much invested in the status quo.  And they're certainly not interested in the best interests of the masses...

lol, i refuse to watch the BCS crap come what-would-be "playoff time". How ****ing sweet would a, say, 16 team playoff system be? My team is the Syracuse Orangemen (don't listen to those people who said it's just "orange" now...that name sucks), and yes i know, they're terrible this year, but for teams like ourselves we need the playoff system. Syracuse would've never been champions in basketball if there was a BCS system!!! The likelihood of our football team being one of the top two teams of the nation is...slim to none, and i am willing to err on the none side. Screw the BCS.

[Chum Slam 0]

Liberlas have a defeatist mentality and are always complaining and never trying to fix anything.

[CaneBrain 97]

As an active particpant in the "Filthy Liberals" thread...I'm wondering why you didn't just continue this discussion in that thread?That aside, although I see your point about divisiveness that exists in your 2 party system....I'm curious as to what your alternative is?  Dictatorship?  Communism?  Not sarcastic, just curious.  In Canada we have several different "parties" at any given time...some fringe fruitcake stuff....with probably 3 parties with any credibility that actually get significant votes.   But when the votes get spread around like that....you can, and we have, end up with "minority" governments.  Which can be very deterimental to accomplishing anything.  I am, admittedly, no expert on systems of government....but I know that in Canada, having several parties does not necessarily make for a more effective system.

I thought that thread had died out and I wanted to be heard! My alternative would not be anything so drastic as chaging from a capitalistic democracy. Just one with 3-4 parties.The Dutch have a system similar to the one I am talking about. Democracy...just with more than 2 parties.I dont think you will find a smarter, more intelligent, better run country than the Netherlands.The fact is I cant stand Democrats OR Republicans at this point. But I dont have any other serious options at this point. Voting for Nader is pointless.....and my grand gesture in the 2004 election was humorous but not constructive either.(I didnt vote for Kerry or Bush. I wrote in Dan Marino. I just could not bring myself to vote for Kerry as much as I despise the job Bush has done as a president. The fact that Bush was re-elected proves Americans are suckers for family businesses.)

[AlphaOmega 0]

So are you saying that a 3-party (or more) system would be better and more unifying?

Yes I believe the emergence of a legitimate 3rd party would be just what this country needs. Maybe even 4 parties. I am not saying this would be a panacea.....but hear me out.Basically, we moan about politicians a lot but they are very hamstrung by the 2 party system. A Republican senator cant vote against the a Bush endorsed bill.....because the Repubs would threaten to back a different candidate in his state when he was up for re-election. The politicians are so beholden to their party that they cant vote their minds. If there were multiple parties, then these politicians might have options in the face of such threats.as it is it takes a very ballsy politician to vote his mind and not his party on a consistent basis which is a shame.

I think it's clear you know what you are talking about and I agree with you about this aspect of American politics. It almost seems like there is no need for candidates at all, that in every race across every state you can vote purely on party since that's how the candidates are going to pass their legislation anyways. What I think is interesting though, about a three or four party system, is that - though it allows more diverse approaches to answers in addition to allowing more political freedom for politicians to "vote their minds" - we sort of eliminate the "majority makes the decisions" concept that this country is founded on. When the choice is either A or B, we determine our choice based on a majority. When the choice is A, B or C (or D and on), we may find that the majority is often unsatisfied.This is just a thought of mine, I don't know if others have thought about it. Perhaps some thoughts/feedback?

[KowboyKoop 0]

The problem is not the two-party system. Throughout the history of the world, a two-party system has proven to be the best option, especially in the United States. Sure, things will never be perfect, but go live in another country for a while and come back and see what you think then. Go live in China, or Russia, or Mexico, or many many many many other countries and see if America's problems are really that bad. Every single country in the world has problems with political institutions, that is just the way it is becuase of human nature, not the workings of the actual institution itself. The problem in the U.S. is not the two-party system, but the mindset that if a person is a Republican, he can not agree with Democrats, and vice versa. Just because a person is a Republican, does not mean they can't have some "liberal" beliefs, and vice versa. However, in this country, when a person is labeled as a Democrat, they are automatically assumed to be aligned with every single so-called "liberal" belief and idea, and are thus villified by everyone who calls themselves a Republican, without even listening to the Democrat's ideas and beliefs. Thus, republicans and democrats too often just assume that they have to disagree with each other and must choose seperate sides of an issue, without actually getting together and equally negotiating a common stance on an issue.I understand that not all issues can be completely resolved and that there are people who are exceptions to this, but I think if people could just work together better without worrying about "who is a liberal and who is a conservative" then things would run smoother. Not perfectly, but better.

[sholden 0]

By the way, you think this is bad?  The Congress, Presidency, and arguably the Supreme Court are all controlled by Republicans (or Republican-appointed members in the case of the USSC).  We're still having problems.  Try to run a country when  different parties control the different branches.

Isn't that almost the goal. If the government can't get anything done they can't oppress the people so much...

[CaneBrain 97]

yeah that would be a trade off but a reasonable one I think....a 40% 30% 25% 5% split would not be so bad as a breakdown on an issue.

[CaneBrain 97]

The problem is not the two-party system. Throughout the history of the world, a two-party system has proven to be the best option, especially in the United States. Sure, things will never be perfect, but go live in another country for a while and come back and see what you think then. Go live in China, or Russia, or Mexico, or many many many many other countries and see if America's problems are really that bad. Every single country in the world has problems with political institutions, that is just the way it is becuase of human nature, not the workings of the actual institution itself.  The problem in the U.S. is not the two-party system, but the mindset that if a person is a Republican, he can not agree with Democrats, and vice versa. Just because a person is a Republican, does not mean they can't have some "liberal" beliefs, and vice versa. However, in this country, when a person is labeled as a Democrat, they are automatically assumed to be aligned with every single so-called "liberal" belief and idea, and are thus villified by everyone who calls themselves a Republican, without even listening to the Democrat's ideas and beliefs. Thus, republicans and democrats too often just assume that they have to disagree with each other and must choose seperate sides of an issue, without actually getting together and equally negotiating a common stance on an issue.I understand that not all issues can be completely resolved and that there are people who are exceptions to this, but I think if people could just work together better without worrying about "who is a liberal and who is a conservative" then things would run smoother. Not perfectly, but better.

I agree with much of what you say.But I disagree about your first paragraph. You gave horrible examples of countries. of course, mexico isnt better.But I did say that I like the set up of the Dutch government and I think that there way of doing things is very smart.You wont find a more progressive people....and their attitudes towards drug policy are light years beyond ours.Plus, I find that a two party system impedes the harmony you talk about in the rest of your post. either way we basically agree on the source of the problem....and thats more important than anything.

[KowboyKoop 0]

The problem is not the two-party system. Throughout the history of the world, a two-party system has proven to be the best option, especially in the United States. Sure, things will never be perfect, but go live in another country for a while and come back and see what you think then. Go live in China, or Russia, or Mexico, or many many many many other countries and see if America's problems are really that bad. Every single country in the world has problems with political institutions, that is just the way it is becuase of human nature, not the workings of the actual institution itself.  The problem in the U.S. is not the two-party system, but the mindset that if a person is a Republican, he can not agree with Democrats, and vice versa. Just because a person is a Republican, does not mean they can't have some "liberal" beliefs, and vice versa. However, in this country, when a person is labeled as a Democrat, they are automatically assumed to be aligned with every single so-called "liberal" belief and idea, and are thus villified by everyone who calls themselves a Republican, without even listening to the Democrat's ideas and beliefs. Thus, republicans and democrats too often just assume that they have to disagree with each other and must choose seperate sides of an issue, without actually getting together and equally negotiating a common stance on an issue.I understand that not all issues can be completely resolved and that there are people who are exceptions to this, but I think if people could just work together better without worrying about "who is a liberal and who is a conservative" then things would run smoother. Not perfectly, but better.

I agree with much of what you say.But I disagree about your first paragraph. You gave horrible examples of countries. of course, mexico isnt better.But I did say that I like the set up of the Dutch government and I think that there way of doing things is very smart.You wont find a more progressive people....and their attitudes towards drug policy are light years beyond ours.Plus, I find that a two party system impedes the harmony you talk about in the rest of your post. either way we basically agree on the source of the problem....and thats more important than anything.

eh, I was just using random countries just to say that every country has problems. I wasn't saying those countries had any specific problems, I was just ranting off the top of my mind that all countries had their problems. Yeah, probably could've stated better examples, but the point remains the same. Every country has problems with their government and we have it pretty good in the U.S.