>It's funny how noone has yet
>to fully dispute my statements
>however. oh well....

I'll dispute them if it will make you feel better--keep 'em coming. BUT before we begin, we need to agree to pay attention. If the purpose of the back-n-forth is not to find agreement, than the debate is purpose-less. I would like us to seek agreement. Agreed?

>Hold right there....to speak technically, Nader
>is not on every state
>ballot.

i'll check my records on that, but thanks for the heads up


ME: that has any
>>activist history, or who has
>>ever done anything besides blow
>>hot air

YOU: Therefore Nader's just known by
>his consumer advocate stance,

so you agree, then?

>>Why Nader challenges Bush and Gore:
>> challenging piss-ant third party
>>candidates IS "playing along" 'cause
>>third party candidates are supposed
>>to play nice together.

>They are? That's a new
>one. In that case
>Browne isn't "playing nice" because
>he has openly criticized both
>Nader and Buchanan on several
>occasions.
>
>>If you are going to break
>>the duopoly you must fight
>>the duopoly--not others against it.

I maintain this, only a fool chooses to compete against people who will not win. Did Ross Perot try to debate Monica Moorhead? No! Because she wasn't a key player in the eleciton. Did Carl Lewis fight me to be long-jump champion? No! 'cause I'm not a contender. Squabbling against "third-party" candidates is what makes someone a "third-party" candidate.

>>The key to breaking the duopoly
>>is political alliance. All
>>"third" parties must unite sworn
>>to undo government controls mandating
>>the duopoly.
>
>This is an election, not an
>alliance.

what are you talking about here? That was me contributing the real-deal strategy.

>>The government is not bipartisan because
>>we don't vote for other
>>cats...
>>The US government, and Pennsylvania state
>>government are designed for TWO
>>(2) parties.

so you concede this?

>ummm I suggest you check out
>your democratic governments. Most
>of those are ruled by
>one major party.

That has nothing to do with Democracy. That has to do with traditional government design. Democracy is the principle that governing is done of, by and for the people--in the past this was done by election because there was no technology available at the time to allow everyone to participate in all levels.

INTERESTING TANGENT: Now that the internet is available, and chat rooms are somewhat like debates on the floor of whatever, is it possible to have full-democracy? (let's post this somewhere on the boards)

There
>may be several candidates in
>the elections, sure, but the
>winning party usually has control
>of the government. What
>should be the alternative?

it's just a problem in having mandated TWO party system. It prevents us from taking the natural American-way progression toward more egalitarian living. An alternative is have chair popularly elected on the floor, have the chair then appoint people to the committees and have committee chairs popularly elected among the committee. This would prevent the "by-default" control that the ruling party has over deciding things, and create the possibility for democratic process.

>Actually the 1800's had more involvement
>of political parties than now.
> At times, it wasn't
>just two parties, it was
>more like 5.

That doesn't dispute my point about moving from monopoly to duopoly. We need to remove the possibility of party control. How? Perhaps we should create this together as we have different perspectives, it would be a more complete proposal...



I agree with you that America is currently a Republic--a constitutional Republic where somewhat controlled elections deternmine the ruling class as opposed to wealth, land-proprietorship or birth.


This, however, is not something to be proud of. We as a nation, then, are a contradiction, because we are rallied behind democratic rhetoric, when we actually maintain a republic system.


That should be a source of embarassment, and through that catalyst--sponsored CHANGE.

Our door is those relatively open elections. Everything starts with TWO. Two argumentative progressive bastards get elected--one to propose legislation, and the other to second it.


Let's let the games begin.