Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #20979

Subject: "Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 11:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"


          

I understand that voting is cool, but we must find a way to relinquish the stranglehold that the Dems and Reps have on the political process in this country. I am all about voting, but it bothers me when i see people mobilizing those to vote when the only choice is bad and worse. Don't patronize me with the plethora of 3rd party candidates that dont have a homosexuals chance at a Christian Coalition meeting. Let me say one thing before i continue, i am voting for Ralph Nader and i campaigned for Bill Bradley in New Hampshire in January.

After saying that i must say that we put WAY too much emphasis on voting, cuz' voting is only the final act of a political cycle. Instead of getting people to vote we need to get people to take part in the political process as a whole.

I know the first argument is that voting leads people to the poltical process...
i believe that taking part in the poltical process leads to voting...

I believe that taking part in political process leads better candidates...

I think everybody needs to play their part in breaking the 2 party system. That is the most important act anyone can take part in. If this is not done there will be no democracy in this republic. We need to mobilize people the next four years to get 3rd parties power and restructure the political process in America.

BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ELSE WE ADDRESS THIS IS ISSUE OR WE WILL NOT HAVE A VOICE AT ALL...

at the end of the day voting will be a moot point.

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
Sep 28th 2000
1
RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
Sep 28th 2000
4
RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
Sep 28th 2000
6
      RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
Sep 28th 2000
8
           RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
Sep 28th 2000
10
                RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
Sep 28th 2000
11
                     RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
Sep 28th 2000
13
RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
d-Best
Sep 28th 2000
5
RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!
d-Best
Sep 28th 2000
2
abandon rhetoric
Sep 28th 2000
3
RE: abandon rhetoric
Sep 28th 2000
7
yet more
Sep 28th 2000
12
RE: abandon rhetoric
Sep 28th 2000
9
      question...
Sep 28th 2000
14
           RE: question...
Sep 29th 2000
18
                we're on the same page
Sep 29th 2000
20
                     RE: we're on the same page
Oct 02nd 2000
32
Ummmmmm
Sep 28th 2000
15
RE: Ummmmmm
Sep 28th 2000
16
RE: Ummmmmm
d-Best
Sep 29th 2000
17
RE: Ummmmmm
Sep 30th 2000
27
      RE: Ummmmmm
d-Best
Oct 01st 2000
29
           RE: Ummmmmm
Oct 03rd 2000
34
RE: Ummmmmm
Sep 29th 2000
21
      RE: Ummmmmm
Sep 30th 2000
26
           Harry Browne!!!??
d-Best
Oct 02nd 2000
33
                RE: Harry Browne!!!??
Oct 03rd 2000
35
RE: Ummmmmm
Sep 29th 2000
19
      RE: Ummmmmm
Sep 29th 2000
22
      RE: Ummmmmm
Sep 30th 2000
24
      Huh?
Sep 30th 2000
23
           RE: Huh?
Sep 30th 2000
25
                Okay..........
Oct 01st 2000
28
                     RE: Okay..........
d-Best
Oct 01st 2000
30
                     RE: Okay..........
Oct 02nd 2000
31
                          and what about
Oct 03rd 2000
36
                               Exactly!
Oct 03rd 2000
37
                                    RE: Exactly!
Oct 05th 2000
38

janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:02 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Voting IS taking part in the political process.

I still maintain that those who are too apathetic to vote can't be counted on to do any of the hard work, either. I mean, voting is the EASY part.



Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:09 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 1


          

i see your point, voting is important but,
freedom is not an easy road, it takes work, hard work,

what is the good of doing nothing for 4 years and getting up early one tuesday in November
and voting for either
a psuedo liberal
a quasi-conservative
a true liberal who won't win
a true conservatibe who won't win

i mean this system is a mockery democratic freedom,

we are the only country that has only 2 major parties

i really don't see the long term value of choosing between bad and worse

please explain:

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:18 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

Right -- if it's important, it's worth working for. I don't disagree with you there at all.

However, not voting isn't going to abolish the 2 party system. So I disagree with your basic premise, if I understand it correctly.

On presidential elections, briefly, who cares who is president other than for Supreme Court nominations (which are in themselves a sufficient reason to vote, even if for the lesser of two evils). Damn president, what does he do anyway? Just a damn figurehead, just one person so those among us who can't understand collective responsibility can blame someone for stuff we don't like. It's a goofball position that doesn't take much brains, as evidenced by Reagan etc. So really. Why are you so exercised over the presidential elections?

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 6


          

I never said don't vote, i said just because you voted don't think the work of democracy is done, taking part in the political process is more than voting for two corporate prostitutes or a few cats with no support at all...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:27 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

See there, I misinterpreted. When you say "Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly" I think you mean that the two statements somehow flow together.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 10


          

all i'm saying is the vote is secondary to the whole poltical process the vote isn't the whole thing as some would have us beleive....

i just used this terminology cuz that what people seem to respond to even though i'm full of hot air and such no one respond to my mild-mannered post just soap box ones...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:41 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 11


  

          

Yes -- voting is not the ONLY thing that makes up political action, but voting is in fact political action in one form. So yeah, it's not enough, but none of it is enough. And it's a place to start.

Again, though, don't you worry about them presidential elections. Do vote and all, because I don't need any more Rehnquists on my a$$ or any more damn Scalias for that matter, and for the SC nominations alone, my vote goes to Gore. Other than that, why not turn our attention away from the popularity contest and onto real issues?

You know I'm always saying that we make more of a difference on a local level. Start locally. ALL important societal change begins small. And I've also said before that if Nader does get the presidency it's not going to mean a thing unless he's got the little naderites in Congress to back him up. Greens, or whatever they call them. So you need folks paying attention to and voting on ALL levels, not just the presidential level.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
d-Best

Thu Sep-28-00 12:10 PM

  
5. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 1


          

voting is the easiest in terms of what to do--you pull a lever or your pick up a crayon (for real, have you seen some of these Pennsylvania counties...)

But the human mind--that same cloud of emotion and doubt that prevents cats from participating in the vote, doesn't judge things off of the rational or the logical.

Just like our motivations to be active are far deeper than the realization that it's what we need to do.


Perhaps different political action may be easier to do in terms of getting over that first hump


Perhaps cats need to convince themselves why they need to vote.

For real, I've got a dare for all OkayPlayers...


GO TO OUR NEXT RESPECTIVE CITY GOVERNMENT MEETING, AND WHEN THEY OPEN UP THE MIC--SPEAK. It doesn't matter what you speak about. Even if you just introduce yourself and say you care about progress, and hope they continue to consider progress priority one. Even if it's just to comment on the process--SPEAK!

It scares the shit out of lazy government when you speak at their meetings. 'cause they're used to voting on bullshit all day long.

I got standing ovation first time I spoke at a city government meeting. I never gave a damn about who was mayor or who was on the council 'til that day.


I feel you, but we're a complex people.

P.S. - I'm serious about the dare.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

d-Best

Thu Sep-28-00 12:04 PM

  
2. "RE: Fuck the vote...Abolish the 2 party monopoly!"
In response to Reply # 0


          

true, voting is the last step. Except maybe getting motivated and running the next election.

OkayPlayer has represented with registering to vote.

Where will we be next year, and in four years getting candidates together and campaigning?

EVERYTHING in life is a campaign...

a campaign to get what you need, or a campaign to live free.

Especially in this world.



Don't just vote. That's not enough. We need to immerse ourselves in the political process.


To break the duopoly.
To silence misinformed politicians who mock our neighborhoods and lives
To spread knowledge
To displace the jealousy-motivated conservatives
To represent true voice

If we're not sending our kids to the school board meeting
if we're not representing city council meetings


If we don't speak up...


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:08 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "abandon rhetoric"
In response to Reply # 0


          

you got a plan of action bring it on.

talk is cheap, and opinions are like.....

------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html

(no, i don't work in the office)

-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "RE: abandon rhetoric"
In response to Reply # 3


          

You mean rheoric like
get out to Vote
Rap the vote
Rock the Vote

I have represented the poltical process going door to door in
in the New England winter trying get a true candidate Bill Bradley
in the general election...

I did mad work making sure the people had a quality choice before i was going to send them into a voting booth and choose between bad and worse...

So don't even try to front that role you play kid the jig is up...

Why won't you advocate something besides psedo-liberal/quasi-progressive thought and give the people a choice before you send an unsuspecting citizen to into voting booth...

All i'm saying let's take part in the candidate process before we get so focused on voting....

That giving them too much power, they choose who's running then we choose who will win?

Naw i'm choosing who's running as well...

As far as plan of action i'n doing it with my thinktank Progressive Pennsylvanians we are in process of making in the next year possibly we can provide a model for other regions but then again it may be a little to radical for you liberals...

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:41 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "yet more"
In response to Reply # 7


          

>You mean rheoric like
>get out to Vote
>Rap the vote
>Rock the Vote

exactly. unless there is an actual methodology behind the words, it's all pretty empty.

>I have ...
>I did...

and? nowhere in your responce to this post or in your subsequent postings do you do anything besides saber rattling. i agree with your INTENTION (what i believe it to be anyway) regarding taking part in the political process being more than pulling lever or punching a ballot.

on the other hand....by your own admission voting IS an important part. your post is full or contradictions (which is fine i guess), but i have yet to see you tell these players here an effective means of mobilization/action.

>So don't even try to front
>that role you play kid
>the jig is up...

this is your second mention of the "role" i play (the first was during your anti-christian/religion crusade). i'll pass on commenting other than to say that i'm inconsequential to the point that talk is STILL cheap whether i'm playing a role or not.

>All i'm saying let's take part
>in the candidate process
>before we get so focused
>on voting....

with all due respect, you must be missing the boat. we've been discussing candidates (of all parties), issues, and the entire electoral process for months. please read before you attack, otherwise you'll end up apologizing like you did last time. right now we have about a week to get folk to get themselves registered to let their voices be heard, as you've previously aquiesed this is important because if you don't vote, you don't got jack to say...whether there be two candidates or two thousand.

>That giving them too much power,
>they choose who's running then
>we choose who will win?
>
>
>Naw i'm choosing who's running as
>well...

this is good. i find your fervency and activity admirable (for what that's worth, which is jack) but....

>As far as plan of action
>i'n doing it with my
>thinktank Progressive Pennsylvanians we are
>in process of making in
>the next year possibly we
>can provide a model for
>other regions but then again
>it may be a little
>to radical for you liberals...

..until you actually provide any solutions beyond "me and my folk
are gonna bring something thats too much for you all" you're just blowing smizzoke. i can say i'm starting my own government and that we're going to overthrow the current one, but until the revolution occurs, so what? and exactly what is a liberal anyway? who (besides you in your i lo way) has anyone ever heard me claim THAT particular title? or is that (once again) your cute little way of putting folk in boxes again?

ultimately, like i said twice before:

you got a better plan, bring it.

peace back.

------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html

(no, i don't work in the office)

-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "RE: abandon rhetoric"
In response to Reply # 3


          

i feel like this, that if we are gonna register people to vote
lets give them a candidate that is worth voting for
fuck that let's give them 1,2,3,4,5 candiates worth voting for...

or our efforts are in vain...


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 12:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "question..."
In response to Reply # 9


          

exactly HOW at this stage in the election a little over a month away do you propose we do this.

i'm completely open to the idea.

and when we finish your plan, how exactly are we going to get nonregistered people to vote for all those candidates we just added?

i REALLY DO understand your point (beinggg a part of the political process is deeper than just voting for candidate x or y), but once again the way you put it across is kinda off (my opinion again, which of couse doesn't matter for ish).

the two party monopoly IS a problem. one which deserves attention. we know this. in the long term we need to devise a plan to fix this, and i'd love for you to share it wih everyone (hell, THAT is what this board is for), but in the mean time folks need to get they behind registered so they can vote in november. if you disagree, that's cool. but then for the next four years you can really complain about what is currently going on because the easiest little way you COULD have let your voice have some weight you ignored.

------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html

(no, i don't work in the office)

-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Fri Sep-29-00 10:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "RE: question..."
In response to Reply # 14


          

I'm not saying doing it this month, i'm saying i'm afraid of after the election the good work a lot of people like you are doing will be in vain cuz people will sit back for four more yeARS until the summer of 2004 and start the same register to vote programs (which are honorable but don't fix the problem completely).

I'm saying we must continue these efforts during the down time and in 4 years we could create a viable 3rd party. It will be a lot of work but we could make it happen. We are all intellegent people, we can start a party, get candidates locally, state-wide, federally in next 4-12 years by 2012 we could be a true force.

I'm all about voting but if voting all we're about FUCK that we have to be about more that is what i meant by my statement.
i said it that way to get peoples attention...


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Sep-29-00 11:03 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "we're on the same page"
In response to Reply # 18


          

forgive me if my tone or words imply that i'marguing with you.

i'm simply saying it's easy to say something loud, get people attention, and fill their ears and eyes with words that appeal to them.

but ultimately you gotta back those words up with some legwork or folk will eventually stop listening to what you have to say because they know you aren't about REALLY jack (which is to a certain degree what i think you've mentioned in your posts).

again...

this board is a wonderful place for people with good ideas to come, share and make things happen to change things they see as problems. if all we do is talk, ultimately this board will be no different than all those other thnktanks where folks get together, say deep things, pat each other on the back for being deep and bounce. i hat tha, and i don't want to see this be reduced to that. the dissemination of ideas is GREAT, but if we aren't doing SOMETHING beyond exercising our mouths/minds then those who have made the world the way it is will continue to run rampant all over us.

SHARE whatever it is you and your compatriots are working on, and don't take it for granted that we're too "liberal"/stupid/whatever to get it.

you HAVE our attention....now HOW do you want to do the things you've suggested (starting our own party, etc.)?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Mon Oct-02-00 10:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "RE: we're on the same page"
In response to Reply # 20


          

I will, i guess i'll put it up on a seperate post...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MisterGrump
Charter member
32144 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 04:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

If folks really wanted to get rid of the 2 party monopoly, the majority of those Americans ELIGIBLE to vote would have done so already. But some folks don't vote, some out of complacency, others because they feel no change can come. Add to that, the 2 parties will conform to the thinking of it's constituency, then there really is no need to change the system at all.





little........................
Grump
M.W.S.
Advisor on Special and Covert Operations
"Giving folks a better, improved way of creeping"


"How many niggaz who will actually kill still rhymin?
How many niggaz who are actually signed still killin? ..
.. and when it comes to killin a mic, they ain't willin
and I'm supposed to be shook? That's the shit that kills me"
P. Monch

________________________________________
Grump
http://twitter.com/Gator_Bell

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Thu Sep-28-00 07:26 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

I agree. Somewhat.

A "2 party system" is not the problem. It isn't like there isn't many other parties of different kinds out there. It's just they aren't getting the publicity.

The real problem you have is that people don't think the way you do. You want people to believe the things you want them to believe and vote for the people you want them to vote for and do the things you want them to do. That would be possible in a perfect world. However, reality states that people think and act individually. Therefore, in essence you're short, because not everyone will conform to your beliefs.

I've been hearing the Naderites bytch and moan for months now, but the thing you don't get is that you get more press than any other third party candidate. Buchanan, Browne, nor Phillips gets nowhere close to the coverage Ralph Nader does, especially on CNN and other liberal networks. It's funny how you whine and complain about the "evil 2 party system", but when has Nader challenged anyone other than Bush and Gore? Has he challenged Buchanan to a debate? Has he challenged Harry Browne to a debate? How about Howard Phillips? The answer is no. Why? Because he wants to play the same game that he is criticizing. Not to mention that he is afraid of the same thing from those candidates that Bush and Gore could be afraid of him: if they embarrass them, there goes any kind of respectability that his campaign has along with it. (I personally think Harry Browne would wipe the floor with his ass in a debate.) In short, Ralph Nader's constant challenges are nothing more than a contradiction.

So when I hear Naderites whine and moan, all I do is chuckle. Nader has you guys fooled into thinking he is the real deal. In fact, he's becoming more and more like a politician every day. He learns quickly. I'm impressed.

"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.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
d-Best

Fri Sep-29-00 09:45 AM

  
17. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 16


          

Man... damn...

Expertise, you KNOW you're always welcome at our table, but damn, man, sometimes you just talk out yer... you know...


Justification for that: Here goes...


Why Nader gets more attention? There's a reason for that. He's the only 50 states candidate that has any activist history, or who has ever done anything besides blow hot air (props to Al for his book, but what has he REALLY done besides be born to an afluent family).
Buchannon is a joke, Brown can be an ASS sometimes (ever listen to him speak?) which destroys credibility, Hagelin is a nice professor with no public appeal and no action, etc. etc. etc.


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. Just like third-world countries are supposed to play nice together, and third-person comments don't really address the two-people involved in the problem.

If you are going to break the duopoly you must fight the duopoly--not others against it.

The key to breaking the duopoly is political alliance. All "third" parties must unite sworn to undo government controls mandating the duopoly.




LAST BUT NOT LEAST: you said the bipartisan system is not the problem... it is, brother.

The government is not bipartisan because we don't vote for other cats--there are currently many non-partisan, and other-party cats in elected positions.

The US government, and Pennsylvania state government are designed for TWO (2) parties. Their Standing Rules, and their Rules of Procedure, and their designs are specifically created for two parties. Republican and Democrat. Seats on committees are assigned by these two parties--not by the chair alone, not by vote, not by first come first serve, not by a committee--NOTHING.

This is done because back in the day, it was two parties fighting for a monopoly. Now, they're sharing a duopoly. That's a step forward, yes... but for 1800's. A positive step for the 1800's was also letting cats sleep in the big house, but does that mean shit today?

No.

'cause people and the world evolve.

No ideology, no conservative, no progressive, no liberal, no nothing will have a voice in government until the two-party system is SMASHED.

So let's put our heads together and come up with a better design. 'cause saying "down with it" isn't enough (which i'm sure you would say).


IDEAS?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sat Sep-30-00 06:39 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

>Expertise, you KNOW you're always welcome
>at our table, but damn,
>man, sometimes you just talk
>out yer... you know...

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

>Why Nader gets more attention?
>There's a reason for that.
> He's the only 50
>states candidate.......

Hold right there....to speak technically, Nader is not on every state ballot. There are only 3 candidates that are actually on every ballot....Gore, Bush.......and Browne. Continue...

that has any
>activist history, or who has
>ever done anything besides blow
>hot air (props to Al
>for his book, but what
>has he REALLY done besides
>be born to an afluent
>family).
>Buchannon
>is a joke, Brown can
>be an ASS sometimes (ever
>listen to him speak?) which
>destroys credibility, Hagelin is a
>nice professor with no public
>appeal and no action, etc.
>etc. etc.

Be real for a second here....you think the majority of the voters even KNOW what Brown or Hagelin even looks like? And of course those are your opinions, which aren't even close to the opinions of the voting public. Therefore Nader's just known by his consumer advocate stance, so they tend to give him camera time.

>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.

There is a difference in between making yourself a candidate and making yourself a third-party advocate. I think those guys, at least Browne, would actually like to become president. I don't think they are in there for the purpose of simply opening up the elections.

>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.

>The government is not bipartisan because
>we don't vote for other
>cats--there are currently many non-partisan,
>and other-party cats in elected
>positions.
>
>The US government, and Pennsylvania state
>government are designed for TWO
>(2) parties. Their Standing
>Rules, and their Rules of
>Procedure, and their designs are
>specifically created for two parties.
> Republican and Democrat.
>Seats on committees are assigned
>by these two parties--not by
>the chair alone, not by
>vote, not by first come
>first serve, not by a
>committee--NOTHING.

ummm I suggest you check out your democratic governments. Most of those are ruled by one major party. There may be several candidates in the elections, sure, but the winning party usually has control of the government.
Not to mention that it's pretty safe to say the US and Penn govts consists of mostly people from those two parties anyway. Therefore it wouldn't make any sense to appoint people that aren't in your party and are against the party platform. What should be the alternative?

>This is done because back in
>the day, it was two
>parties fighting for a monopoly.
> Now, they're sharing a
>duopoly. That's a step
>forward, yes... but for 1800's.
> A positive step for
>the 1800's was also letting
>cats sleep in the big
>house, but does that mean
>shit today?

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.


"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.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
d-Best

Sun Oct-01-00 11:54 AM

  
29. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 27


          

>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.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Tue Oct-03-00 12:33 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

>>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.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Fri Sep-29-00 11:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 16


          

I agree. Somewhat.
A "2 party system" is not the problem. It isn't like there isn't many other parties of different kinds out there. It's just they aren't getting the publicity.

///The real problem you have is that people don't think the way you do. You want people to believe the things you want them to believe and vote for the people you want them to vote for and do the things you want them to do. That would be possible in a perfect world. However, reality states that people think and act individually. Therefore, in essence you're short, because not everyone will conform to your beliefs.///

i really don't care who people vote for, for you try psycho-analyze me as most other cats on this site as some progressive tyrant is funny as hell but anyway...

I want far leftists to a real chioce (Soc. Party etc.)
I want liberals to have a real liberal choice (Green Party)
I want moderate liberals to have a real choice (Dems)
i want independents? to have a choice (Reform)
i want moderate conservatives to have a choice (Reps)
i want true conservatives to have a chioce (Libs)

and on and on...

///I've been hearing the Naderites bytch and moan for months now, but the thing you don't get is that you get more press than any other third party candidate. Buchanan, Browne, nor Phillips gets nowhere close to the coverage Ralph Nader does, especially on CNN and other liberal networks. It's funny how you whine and complain about the "evil 2 party system", but when has Nader challenged anyone other than Bush and Gore? Has he challenged Buchanan to a debate? Has he challenged Harry Browne to a debate? How about Howard Phillips? The answer is no. Why? Because he wants to play the same game that he is criticizing. Not to mention that he is afraid of the same thing from those candidates that Bush and Gore could be afraid of him: if they embarrass them, there goes any kind of respectability that his campaign has along with it. (I personally think Harry Browne would wipe the floor with his ass in a debate.) In short, Ralph Nader's constant challenges are nothing more than a contradiction.///


I point is that most countries in the western world have more than two choices in a given election...

it's not just about the duopoly its also the winner take all system of politics...

Nader may have his own agenda but my reason for wanting this, my idea came to mind long before Nader threw his name in the hat so to assume that Nader enlightened us to the situation is silly.

//So when I hear Naderites whine and moan, all I do is chuckle. Nader has you guys fooled into thinking he is the real deal. In fact, he's becoming more and more like a politician every day. He learns quickly. I'm impressed.//

Look this much bigger than Nder this about Harry Browne checkin' Geo. W. on true conservatism. It is about everybody having an oppurtunity share their views at a debate i think it would tight is all those cats were in the debate.

you are a funny guy it's all good

anyway

A Black Libertarian- WTF?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Sat Sep-30-00 04:32 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

>i really don't care who people
>vote for, for you try
>psycho-analyze me as most other
>cats on this site as
>some progressive tyrant is funny
>as hell but anyway...

Stop lying. If you didn't care about who people voted for then you wouldn't have campaigned for Bradley and Nader.

>I want far leftists to a
>real chioce (Soc. Party etc.)
>I want liberals to have a
>real liberal choice (Green Party)
>I want moderate liberals to have
>a real choice (Dems)
>i want independents? to have a
>choice (Reform)
>i want moderate conservatives to have
>a choice (Reps)
>i want true conservatives to have
>a chioce (Libs)

And all of them have choices.
However, not all of those parties are going to have equal footing. It's not as if Libertarians are going to have as good as a start as the Republicans, who formed as a result of the merging of several smaller parties during pre-Civil War days. It's the same way for other parties. If they are legit, and people like them, then they will get a following. However to think that will happen overnight is unrealistic. The Greens are only popular because Nader is a well known consumer advocate. Reform? Well Buchanan is an outspoken social conservative. (But really, do the Reform Party even have a set agenda? That should tell you something.) Other than that, the others arent well known, so they aren't going to get alot of press than the others.

>///I've been hearing the Naderites bytch
>and moan for months now,
>but the thing you don't
>get is that you get
>more press than any other
>third party candidate. Buchanan, Browne,
>nor Phillips gets nowhere close
>to the coverage Ralph Nader
>does, especially on CNN and
>other liberal networks. It's funny
>how you whine and complain
>about the "evil 2 party
>system", but when has Nader
>challenged anyone other than Bush
>and Gore? Has he challenged
>Buchanan to a debate? Has
>he challenged Harry Browne to
>a debate? How about Howard
>Phillips? The answer is no.
>Why? Because he wants to
>play the same game that
>he is criticizing. Not to
>mention that he is afraid
>of the same thing from
>those candidates that Bush and
>Gore could be afraid of
>him: if they embarrass them,
>there goes any kind of
>respectability that his campaign has
>along with it. (I personally
>think Harry Browne would wipe
>the floor with his ass
>in a debate.) In short,
>Ralph Nader's constant challenges are
>nothing more than a contradiction.///

>I point is that most countries
>in the western world have
>more than two choices in
>a given election...

Yes, but they usually only take two of them seriously.

>it's not just about the duopoly
>its also the winner take
>all system of politics...

Elaborate. What is the alternative that you are advocating?

>Nader may have his own agenda
>but my reason for wanting
>this, my idea came to
>mind long before Nader threw
>his name in the hat
>so to assume that Nader
>enlightened us to the situation
>is silly.

But it's funny that the only ones that bring it up (at least in here) are Nader supporters (but then again, maybe I am the only other third party supporter in here).

>Look this much bigger than Nder
>this about Harry Browne checkin'
>Geo. W. on true conservatism.
>It is about everybody having
>an oppurtunity share their views
>at a debate i think
>it would tight is all
>those cats were in the
>debate.

Yeah but you can't just throw everyone that wants to run for president in a debate. There has got to be some kind of standard in which the candidates must adhere to. I don't see nothing wrong is 15% of the polls or 5% of the popular vote. Lets give the spotlight to the ones who actually have a chance of making a difference. Harry Browne is going through the same thing that Ralph Nader is. The only difference is that Nader is the only one doing the complaining.

>A Black Libertarian- WTF?

I say the same thing about black leftists. It's like an oxymoron.

"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.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
d-Best

Mon Oct-02-00 11:14 AM

  
33. "Harry Browne!!!??"
In response to Reply # 26


          

I you the same mistake alot of Republi-Crats make, and that is creating this abstract of the "third" party, in which all other parties are in.

In 1996, the Reform party was HUGE!!! Not third-party material (such as world workers, socialist, constitutional law, etc.)

in 2000 the Greens are HUGE!!!


Harry Browne is a joke candidate. He will be lucky if he gets 0.1% of the popular vote--LUCKY. In fact, let's go back and examine that.


Nader is a very popular candidate. He took 4% of the popular vote in the 1996 election--and he had NO CAMPAIGN--sad efforts at best. This year, the Greens are huge, with hundreds of candidates in every state, people running local, state, national--many of which are the only non-republican candidate, many of which will win.

Nader is huge for a reason. Not 'cause he's some "oh, woe is me" complaining "third-party" candidate--because he is a famous champion of people's rights, of efficiency, and of government and corporate responsibility. He has the longest history of public service of any candidate, the most ideas, and a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE support structure.

Granted the greens are not running a powerful presidential campaign. Alot of this is due to absence of contributions from Exxon or Pharmaceutical Companies, and being shut-out by the press, but they ARE getting by on penny candy.


Every newspaper, including the ones that claim to be more progressive have shut Nader out. The only Nader articles are attacking opinion pieces. Your logic that Nader gets the most press is faulty. It's like saying ads calling clinton a liar are "press"

Nader is being attacked because he is a REAL threat to a REAL problem. If he wins, it's all over for the duopoly. If he wins 15%, the Party qualifies for millions of dollars in Federal aid.

In that case, the current hundreds of Green candidates become hundreds of well-funded green candidates--goodbye duopoly.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Expertise
Charter member
37848 posts
Tue Oct-03-00 01:05 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "RE: Harry Browne!!!??"
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

>I you the same mistake alot
>of Republi-Crats make, and that
>is creating this abstract of
>the "third" party, in which
>all other parties are in.
>In 1996, the Reform party was
>HUGE!!! Not third-party material
>(such as world workers, socialist,
>constitutional law, etc.)
>
>in 2000 the Greens are HUGE!!!

You can't possibly compare the Greens to Perot (I forbid to put Buchanan in the same party as Perot) in 92 or 96. Perot was totally influencial in Clinton winning the presidential election in 92. Hell Clinton never even won a majority of the popular vote in either election! Nader doesn't have enough support to make a strong appearance like Perot did in either election. He, like Browne, is only hoping to gain enough votes to have federal funding for next year, not to mention enough support to get on all ballots as well as put himself in the debates next election. The Greens aren't as big as you guys percieve.

>Harry Browne is a joke candidate.
> He will be lucky
>if he gets 0.1% of
>the popular vote--LUCKY. In
>fact, let's go back and
>examine that.

Actually last year he took 2%. We just want 5. That's it, that's all.

>Nader is a very popular candidate.
> He took 4% of
>the popular vote in the
>1996 election--and he had NO
>CAMPAIGN--sad efforts at best.
>This year, the Greens are
>huge, with hundreds of candidates
>in every state, people running
>local, state, national--many of which
>are the only non-republican candidate,
>many of which will win.

Same with the Libertarians. We have over 500 candidates campaigning in this upcoming election at every level. There's no difference.

>Nader is huge for a reason.
> Not 'cause he's some
>"oh, woe is me" complaining
>"third-party" candidate--because he is a
>famous champion of people's rights,
>of efficiency, and of government
>and corporate responsibility. He
>has the longest history of
>public service of any candidate,
>the most ideas, and a
>HUGE, HUGE, HUGE support structure.

How nice.

>Granted the greens are not running
>a powerful presidential campaign.
>Alot of this is due
>to absence of contributions from
>Exxon or Pharmaceutical Companies, and
>being shut-out by the press,
>but they ARE getting by
>on penny candy.

As I stated before, campaign contributions are a very small figure of Gore and Bush's campaign. If anything it might count for up to maybe 10% of their funding......and that's being real generous. Most of their support comes from individual funding. In fact, on his website (although I don't know where because I don't go to it) it is said that Bush has a list of all of his supporters to his campaign. Perhaps you should go there and see how much of a percentage has been made directly from corporations.

Not to mention.....Nader has the big Green money, Buchanan now has federal funding.......Browne has neither. All his money is grassroots.

>Every newspaper, including the ones that
>claim to be more progressive
>have shut Nader out.
>The only Nader articles are
>attacking opinion pieces. Your
>logic that Nader gets the
>most press is faulty.
>It's like saying ads calling
>clinton a liar are "press"

Doesn't matter. Attention is attention, especially if you weren't previously getting any. I bet you Nader would rather have negative publicity than no publicity.

>Nader is being attacked because he
>is a REAL threat to
>a REAL problem. If
>he wins, it's all over
>for the duopoly. If
>he wins 15%, the Party
>qualifies for millions of dollars
>in Federal aid.

Actually he only needs 5% for federal funds; 15% to make sure the next Green Party candidate gets into the debates.

Let's pretend for a second that, out of the depths of hell, the AntiChrist comes and makes Nader president.

Wouldn't it, like it did McCain, defeat the whole purpose of his stances on government reform? McCain ran around yelling about campaign finance reform and about how Bush had so much so-called "soft money", yet he gave Bush a fight and won several key states in the primaries. Same with Bush-Gore, in which Bush has collected over double the campaign funding that Gore has. It made McCain look quite dumb when McCain is shouting "It isn't fair! Bush has more money than I do and will win by a landslide!" when he was neck and neck with Bush until Super Tuesday.

Wouldn't a Nader victory do the same? Wouldn't it say, "hey, although this is a two-party system, and corporate dollars are flowing, Nader STILL won!" It means that despite those odds, you can still win? Either way, for Nader it's a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" strategy.

>In that case, the current hundreds
>of Green candidates become hundreds
>of well-funded green candidates--goodbye duopoly.

I'll believe it when I see it. Although I'm sure the Greens will reform alot of things (not for the better, however), I will bet you they aren't going to give up their new found political power so easily. Not to mention that by favor of being in the majority, democracy will work in THEIR favor more than any other minority party. All in all, I don't trust the Greens any more than I do the Demos or the Reps.



"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.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Fri Sep-29-00 10:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 15


          

the majority of americans eligible to vote are a minority...

the reason most people don't vote is because nothing changes...

and the main reason we do need more parties is that the 2 major parties are in pocket of the corporations...

and they also give people mad lip service that makes it seem like they are conforming to thinking of the people but its just plain pandering...


do you think 300 million people can be divided into two political ideologies?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
BooDaah
Charter member
32690 posts
Fri Sep-29-00 12:01 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 19


          

>the majority of americans eligible to
>vote are a minority...

perhaps? explain...

>the reason most people don't vote
>is because nothing changes...

that's an opinion. mine is that the reason folks don't vote comes from a variety of sources (inclufding what they percieve as what you say): apathy, ignorance of/to the issues, lack of access to information, lack of a candidate they are particularly pressed about, fear, intimidation...the list goes on

regarding YOUR opinion. explain to me how you're going to change what happens in elections by not participating? you ever think part of the reason things DON'T change via elections is because folk don't vote? helluva catch 22.

>and the main reason we do
>need more parties is that
>the 2 major parties are
>in pocket of the corporations...

perhaps. personally i think that the more choices the better. a two party system DOES lead to what we have this time...two candidates that suck. but guess what, if there were 1000 candidates they might all still suck.

>and they also give people mad
>lip service that makes it
>seem like they are conforming
>to thinking of the people
>but its just plain pandering...

fully agree. but that's the nature of politricks today...tell 'em what they want to hear. but this has nothing to do with you saying F*CK voting (and then turning around and saying that you're gonna vote).

>do you think 300 million people
>can be divided into two
>political ideologies?

not necessarily. but give me one candidate that is gonna satisfy everyone. the point is...take part. if that means running your damn self then do it. if it means preaching to high heaven regarding the pros and cons of each candidate...then do it. if it means getting together with a likeminded group of people and making sure that what YOU want is reflected in the candidate you pick...

------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html

(no, i don't work in the office)

-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Sat Sep-30-00 03:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "RE: Ummmmmm"
In response to Reply # 22


          

>the majority of americans eligible to
>vote are a minority...
>>>perhaps? explain...>>>

I meant to say based on empirical data the amount of people who are registered and vote are a monority to the nations population.

>the reason most people don't vote
>is because nothing changes...>


>>>that's an opinion. mine is that the reason folks don't vote comes from a variety of sources (inclufding what they percieve as what you say): apathy, ignorance of/to the issues, lack of access to information, lack of a candidate they are particularly pressed about, fear, intimidation...the list goes on>>>

I agree.

>>>regarding YOUR opinion. explain to me how you're going to change what happens in elections by not participating? you ever think part of the reason things DON'T change via elections is because folk don't vote? helluva catch 22.>>>

Boodah you keep missing my point fam, I'm not saying don't vote i'm saying don't treat voting like the end all be all... I'm saying we have to motivate people to do more than just vote, we have to build our own poltical parties, candidates, break the two party system, interests groups, etc.
I'm all about voting, my first line in this post is "I think voting is cool but..."

>and the main reason we do
>need more parties is that
>the 2 major parties are
>in pocket of the corporations...

>>>perhaps. personally i think that the more choices the better. a two party system DOES lead to what we have this time...two candidates that suck. but guess what, if there were 1000 candidates they might all still suck.>>>

I doubt that would be the case but i'd rather have a hundred bad chioces than two. Most industrialized countries have about 4 major parties(leftist, moderate liberal, moderate conservative and far right). I think that would be more equitiable and allow people to realy vote for their conscience and beliefs to put a someone they really are for in office not keep out someone they don't like.

>and they also give people mad
>lip service that makes it
>seem like they are conforming
>to thinking of the people
>but its just plain pandering...>

>>>fully agree. but that's the nature of politricks today...tell 'em what they want to hear. but this has nothing to do with you saying F*CK voting (and then turning around and saying that you're gonna vote).>>>

I agree with the fact that it's all politricks. I disagree (when ask say it has nothing do with my point), because it deals directly with my thesis of breaking the duopoly of political power in America. The reason why we get lip service is because the parties and corporation has all the power. So that say what we want not have to worry anything, cuz in the next election they'll win, or someone in their party, or the so-called other side. i sickens me that 2 groups decide who will hold most important offices in this country.



>do you think 300 million people
>can be divided into two
>political ideologies?

>>>not necessarily. but give me one candidate that is gonna satisfy everyone. the point is...take part. if that means running your damn self then do it. if it means preaching to high heaven regarding the pros and cons of each candidate...then do it. if it means getting together with a likeminded group of people and making sure that what YOU want is reflected in the candidate you pick...>>>

i agree, and right 2 groups control the political landscape of this country.

I'm not looking for someone that will please everyone...i'm saying let people have a voice if all the Presidential candidates had a chance to compete and GW still won i would say all good, but that not the situation.

I also plan to run for office soon in my home state of Pennsylvania i have a plethora of people behind me due to a lot connection i have made in Western PA, politcal scene. I started a think tank of young forward thinking Pennsylvanians and built a coalition from Pittsburgh to Philly. I'm all about positive action...


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
MisterGrump
Charter member
32144 posts
Sat Sep-30-00 10:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "Huh?"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

>do you think 300 million people can be divided into two political ideologies?

There is a diference bwteen ideology and political party. The ideology of a politcal parties change in order to fit it's constituency. Remember, when Blacks were first allowed to vote, they voted for Republicans because it was Lincoln's Party. And because alot of Republican Party members were Anti-Slavery Northerners, many Ex-Slaves sympathized with them instead of the Democrats who were majority Southern, former confederates. Now, a black person voting for a Republican is deemed strange, while most African-Americans vote for Democrats.

Why is that?

Because the ideology of the party has changed due to a change in who makes up most of the party membership.





little........................
Grump
M.W.S.
Advisor on Special and Covert Operations
"Giving folks a better, improved way of creeping"


"How many niggaz who will actually kill still rhymin?
How many niggaz who are actually signed still killin? ..
.. and when it comes to killin a mic, they ain't willin
and I'm supposed to be shook? That's the shit that kills me"
P. Monch

________________________________________
Grump
http://twitter.com/Gator_Bell

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Sat Sep-30-00 03:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "RE: Huh?"
In response to Reply # 23


          

>do you think 300 million people can be divided into two political ideologies?

>>>There is a diference bwteen ideology and political party. The ideology of a politcal parties change in order to fit it's constituency. Remember, when Blacks were first allowed to vote, they voted for Republicans because it was Lincoln's Party. And because alot of Republican Party members were Anti-Slavery Northerners, many Ex-Slaves sympathized with them instead of the Democrats who were majority Southern, former confederates. Now, a black person voting for a Republican is deemed strange, while most African-Americans vote for Democrats.>>.

Why is that?

Yes their is a difference in those terms not a big one. Democrats define themselves to have a collective liberal ideology and the GOP claims to be conservative so that means a nation of 300 million must choose to be a varying degree of liberal or conservative or inderpendent. If one is independent you can't vote in primaries and usually don't have a political coalition to join with to create their own party. That is why people must become more active...

I really don't know what your point is, maybe you like the current system, i don't know... but the issue is the poltical control 2 groups have over 300 million people not semantics...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
MisterGrump
Charter member
32144 posts
Sun Oct-01-00 10:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Okay.........."
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

>If one is independent you can't vote in primaries and usually don't have a political coalition to join with to create their own party. That is why people must become more active...

Ummmmmmmm..............if you join an organization claiming independence from a political party, are you not contradicting yourself? What I mean by independent is that one does not stick with one political party, that you are free to choose the best candidate that you feel represents you and is best suited for the duties of that office, regardless of political affiliation.

Can you name a country where there is more than 2 political parties that share control of that country's government?





little........................
Grump
M.W.S.
Advisor on Special and Covert Operations
"Giving folks a better, improved way of creeping"


"How many niggaz who will actually kill still rhymin?
How many niggaz who are actually signed still killin? ..
.. and when it comes to killin a mic, they ain't willin
and I'm supposed to be shook? That's the shit that kills me"
P. Monch

________________________________________
Grump
http://twitter.com/Gator_Bell

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
d-Best

Sun Oct-01-00 12:02 PM

  
30. "RE: Okay.........."
In response to Reply # 28


          

if you join an organization claiming
>independence from a political party,
>are you not contradicting yourself?

in the current state of politrical affairs, the term "independent" can mean either independance from political parties, or independance from the choices on the registration in your state. When I first registered in PA, you could register as Republican, Democrat or Libertarian. I chose "Not Affiliated" because I did not affiliate with any of the three.

The term Independant is spoken from a point of view of dominant paragdigm politicians who see people as a function of enemy, ally or undecided. Although it lexically implies avoiding parties, in the context of today, it really means "none of the above"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Mon Oct-02-00 10:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: Okay.........."
In response to Reply # 28


          

Can you name a country where there is more than 2 political parties that share control of that country's government?

Great Britain; 4 parties have seats in Parliament....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
janey
Charter member
123120 posts
Tue Oct-03-00 02:04 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "and what about"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

Israel -- they've always had coalition politics. Not that we are particularly anxious to hold them up as a role model at the moment...

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
MisterGrump
Charter member
32144 posts
Tue Oct-03-00 02:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "Exactly!"
In response to Reply # 36


  

          

Doesn't the idea of too many political parties sound a bit akward?





little........................
Grump
M.W.S.
Advisor on Special and Covert Operations
"Giving folks a better, improved way of creeping"


"How many niggaz who will actually kill still rhymin?
How many niggaz who are actually signed still killin? ..
.. and when it comes to killin a mic, they ain't willin
and I'm supposed to be shook? That's the shit that kills me"
P. Monch

________________________________________
Grump
http://twitter.com/Gator_Bell

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Oct-05-00 07:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "RE: Exactly!"
In response to Reply # 37


          

What is backwards about that idea?

i think a country of 300 million diverse people should have a plathora of political parties...

or none at all.

but not two that rule over the whole political process.




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #20979 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com