maybe, pan.
i dont think the collective self-congratulations that americans like to do so much about their political system really amounts to very much--particularly if anything like what i am arguing is the case obtains--which would mean that the ideologies are obviously outmoded---but the actors working within them have no idea how to adapt. seems to me that in such a context, moving toward the center is like moving closer to the middle of a sinking ship.

institutions themselves do not mean much simply because they are made to function by human beings, and those human beings work within ideological contexts and if those contexts are dysfunctional, the institutions will not save you.

radio roachboy bringing you yet another "have a happy morning" broadcast now returns to its sham the sham and the pharoahs retrospective. this is wolly bully....

You have very good points, and I do agree we need change. However, how much change can we handle while fixing the system?

Like I said our system when functioning properly is the freest, is the most caring and is IMHO the best system possible. The issue to me is, it's broken because of the partisanship and the refusal to find compromise, not for compromise's sake but for what is in the best interest of the nation and its future.

Right now, all we concentrate on is the present, we aren't even learning from the past. If we continue this non compromising, self indulgent, only now fuck tomorrow's attitudes, we will become obsolete, we will become a parody of ourselves and this experiment of more freedom than any civilization has or may have ever had will fail.

i agree with your definition of the problems and the probable outcomes of not dealing with them, but not your understanding of the cause or how we might go about dealing with the problems. but then again, i think that in significant ways, the states already is a parody of itself--but that is another matter, i think, and so will now return to more 60s garage band tracks.

I'm sorry, pan, but that sentence made me laugh right out loud.

1.Have John McCain run as a Republican in '08.

2.Kick the intolerant, reactionary pseudo-Christians and the neo-cons out of the party. They need to move to the middle.

3.Learn how to balence a budget and still cut taxes (hint: smaller government)

A time machine that takes me back to being a very cocky little 15 year old repblican is all I need to switch. That, or trendy adds like Mac has. "Hi, I'm a Republican", "I'm a Democract"....

No problem, Rat. Given the mess in there now and the way they have given W a blank check, the system of checks and balances right now is broken.

But it is the same as parliament right now. Hopefully, it all changes soon and we can have true checks and balances again.

My view on political parties: Political parties don't actually stand for anything. at all.

Party affiliation in absolutely meaningless. The fact that so many vehemently support one of the two current popular parties makes me cringe.

Other than opposing everything the other party does, what is the difference between the two? There is no difference. They are both not what the country needs.

Heh heh - I laughed at this one. I am a Mac user, and I am even now extrapolating what you might have meant. Surely you're not equating Macs with liberalism? Egads, no. It cannot be. :lol:

If the Dems were like Zell Miller, I'd vote for 'em.

One of Zel Miller's last acts as a senator was to introduce a bill to create "thought police" or a "Council of Decency" as he termed it in his bill, the purpose of which was to advise the FCC on what is obscene, indecent or profane and increase the fines for violations of any of the above.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2147:

He couldnt get one co-sponsor from either party. In fact, I think both parties were afraid what he would come up with next and were glad when he chose to retire in 2004.

miller is one of those folk to whom that old saw applies:

given the choice between a republican and a republican, the republican will win.

I'd classify myself as a moderate Libertarian. I basically agree with the Libertarian party on most issues, but I think there should be government intervention when it comes to restricting immigration, environmental issues, and some protection of American workers/industry from foreign competition.

At the state and local level I usually vote for Libertarians, Republicans or conservative/Libertarian-leaning candidates from other parties. I don't vote Libertarian at the federal level because I strongly disagree with their stance on immigration, so the GOP is the only real choice for me at this point. It's not that I love the Republican Party, but that I can't stand a majority of the things the Democrats stand for. However; as the neoconservatives lead the GOP to the socialist/politically correct/left-wing side of the political spectrum, it gets harder and harder for me to vote Republican. Whatever happened to the principles of limited government that Republicans claim to stand for? It seems like the only thing Bush doesn't want our government to do is enforce our immigration laws.

So, to answer the question, here's what it would take for me to change my views on the two major political parties:

Democrats: They'd basically need to do a "180" flip-flop on most issues in order to earn my vote.

Republicans: I currently view them as the lesser of two evils.

To change my opinion of them for the better, they'd need to actually start supporting limited government and individual rights on more issues. No more bans on same sex marriage. No more supporting affirmative action. No more spending billions of dollars fighting AIDS in foreign countries. I could continue, but I think you get the idea.

To change my opinion of them for the worse, they should just keep moving in the direction they've been moving for the last six or eight years.

Hey! I'm a Mac user and nobody in their right mind would consider me left-wing!

LOL So?

What a typical response, too. :thumbsup:

Gosh. The same could be said of the intolerant, reactionary leftwingers.

For someone who pretends to be above the business as usual in the politics forum, you sure do seem to fit in well.

Squirt....which Zell Miller do you want the Dems to emulate?

The one who was a segretationist in the 60s or the one who co-sponsored the Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage in 04?

The one who was a strong proponent of federal funding for public education when he was governor or the one who opposed No Child Left Behind and wanted to limit federal funding when he was in the Senate?

The one who was pro-choice before he was anti-choice?

The one who introduced Kerry as "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's greatest leaders...who had "worked to strengthen our military." at a speech in '01 or the one who said John Kerry was "weak on defense" at the 04 Republican Convention.


The one who endorsed Bill Clinton in 92 or the one who endorsed George Bush in 04?

There was a reason he was known as Zany Zell or Zigzag Zell in the Senate.