>>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?

Sure. Usually if I don't respond to a certain statement you made, it's either because I agreed, concede, or missed it. But if you want me to highlight the points that I agree with, then I will.

>>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

Actually I know he isn't. He isn't on the ballot in GA.

>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?

I guess. It's pretty much the same thing.

>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.

True but Nader isn't positioning himself as a regular candidate. He is making himself to be a pro-democracy candidate. Therefore if one of his stances is giving the smaller candidates a chance in the debates, then why wouldn't he give that same chance to Browne, Phillips, and Hagelin? And if he is not willing to give them a chance, then why should Bush and Gore, in which have way bigger campaign support gaps over Nader than Nader has over the smaller 3, give him any attention?

If Nader was really serious about opening the debates I think he should have challenged not only Buchanan but the other 3 in a 5-man debate. The way I see it, Nader is only trying to help himself, not actually change the nature of the debates.

>>>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.

Because Nader is trying to play both sides of the fence. He is trying to say the political system is unfair to third-party candidates while at the same time shutting out the smaller campaigns to debate him. Which one is it? Are they supposed to be his opponents or are they supposed to be his allies?

>>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.

Like others, you are trying to make up your own view of democracy. At least give me an example of how you feel your version of democracy can be accomplished, at least in accordance to the subject area we are discussing. Okay, you're saying that a two-party legislature is unfair. What's your idea?

>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)

Aiight. I'll go to that thread, if I ever finish with the 30 others I have to respond to. *sighs* I hate work.

>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.

But even then most, if not all, chairmen would be selected from the majority party. What you're advocating is more conflict and chaos in a Congress that really doesn't need any more of it. It's like you're asking the House of Representatives to become Britain's House of Commons. No way.

Let me also say that most Congressional positions are voted on within the respective parties. You don't actually think a committee seat is going to be given to a minority party member against the majority, do you? Don't count on it. That's why they have caucuses and party meetings, to go ahead and decide beforehand who they want to support. They, just like any other party, have an agenda and game plan beforehand to execute what they want to get done before they step into the room.

>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...

True, but I don't see it actually happening through Congress, nor through any state government. I'm sorry, but I think the Greens would take advantage of the same powers and benefits the Republicans have right now if they were to get the majority of representatives in Congress.

>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.

The founding fathers never intended for this country to be a democracy. Check any literature back then pertaining to the US after the Constitution was made, most notably the Federalist Papers. They always characterized the US as "republic" "republican" "republican ideals". "Democracy" didn't get molded into American society until Woodrow Wilson started spouting it during World War I.

Discrimination within voting rights wasn't simply based on racist and sexist beliefs back then, it was based on the assumption that the general public would not care or would not keep themselves properly informed enough to make accurate decisions on the direction of government and the country. At least on the "don't care" aspect, they were right. Guess when voter turnouts dropped the sharpest in this country? Soon after the Women's Sufferage Act and the Voting Rights Amendment.

>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.

It starts with two, but you still are asking for a majority of reps to approve it. And then if you have a president who doesn't agree, you have to get a 67% majority. It's not as easy as you think. If it was, then we would have had legislative-internally ideas such as campaign finance reform easily passed. What's the incentive for the majority giving up power?


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.