pan6467

Ok so you are a Dem., a GOP, a Lib. (ertarian), whatever. What would it take for you to change your views on Bush, on Clinton/Pelosi, on our government and political parties in general?

What straw breaking the camel's back would get you to think about changing your vote, your support?

Now that you have found that straw, what would it take to meet halfway and find compromises that would better this nation and the world?

What stops us from finding these compromises?

What stops you from working on finding people to elect that will work for these compromises?

(Just a gut feeling, more than most will blame the other party in some way, which is sad... but the parties themselves can't even reach compromise levelks within themselves, each party (even the Lib.) have sold out their beliefs to extremists, lobbyists, the media and so on.)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

There has always been uncivility in US politics, usually most prevelant when the country was facing a crisis - leading up to the Civil War and WW I and II, the civil rights movement, Vietnam, watergate in the 60s and early 70s and since 9/11, terrorism.

When I worked in the Senate, during the Reagan years, there was partisanship, but respect. I attribute that to the political leaders of the times, including Reagan, but also folks like Bob Dole and George Mitchell in the Senate, Tip O'Neil and Bob Michals in the House. The current leadership of both parties could learn from these statesmen.

Here is where I get partisan. IMO, two things that emerged in the 90s have led to the current level of uncivility and unwillingness to compromise - the rise of the religious right in the Repub party and the impeachment of Clinton.

Former Repub Senator (and episcopal minister) John Danforth has the same concern about the religious right - "There is a difference between being a Christian in politics and having a Christian agenda for politics."

The impeachment of Clinton also created a division that will be a long time in healing. Impeachment is the ulitmate rejection of the single most important political decision the country makes every four years. Unless an overwhelming majority believe it is necessary, which was not the case with Clnton, unlike Nixon and watergate, it creates animosty. While I would never condone Clinton's action, I think most historians from across the political perspective, would agree that the impeachment was politcially motivated, rather than based on a Constitutional crisis.

When we next faced a national crisis, Bush had a unique opportunity to bring the country together and he did do so in the days after 9/11, with the full support of liberals like myself. Unfortunately, again IMO, he turned away from the immediate crisis to pursue an agenda that once again divided the country by invading Iraq and by using the national security crisis to promote ideologoical solutions, without a willingess to compromise.

I dont know who will lead the effort, but we willl get through this current period of exteme partisanship and animosty because the system is stronger than any one particular ideology, and enough fair minded Americans will demand it, through the ballot and other peaceful means.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Gilda

If the Republicans were to take a moderate view of gay rights, offer more support to freedom of speech and separation of church and state, limit spending better, and offer more tax relief for the poor and less for the rich, and take a more moderate position on one or two other issues, I'd be a registered Republican in a heartbeat.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Ustwo

Nothing.

Political parties change in character over time, but my ideals would remain the same. I support the party only as far as it supports my ideals, the party itself means nothing to me. If the democrats lost the loony left and stopped trying to buy votes with peoples tax dollars I'd switch to them, if the republicans became to centered on religion I'd loose them, but the party itself doesn't matter.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109257
You still have posting privileges on this forum?

Intense1

The OP:

"Ok so you are a Dem., a GOP, a Lib. (ertarian), whatever. What would it take for you to change your views on Bush, on Clinton/Pelosi, on our government and political parties in general?

What straw breaking the camel's back would get you to think about changing your vote, your support?

Now that you have found that straw, what would it take to meet halfway and find compromises that would better this nation and the world?

What stops us from finding these compromises?

What stops you from working on finding people to elect that will work for these compromises?

(Just a gut feeling, more than most will blame the other party in some way, which is sad... but the parties themselves can't even reach compromise levelks within themselves, each party (even the Lib.) have sold out their beliefs to extremists, lobbyists, the media and so on.)"

My first foray into the Politics thread. And for the record, I am a Republican.

I am also an evangelical Christian (missionary also, to go one further) who DOES NOT support the "Christian Right". Oh, I agree with some of their ideas, but to me, they went way off base from the beginning with their single issue focus (abortion, back in the 80's.) If their desire was to inject more of the whole "WWJD" thing into American political life, then they failed miserably, as "J" himself was so absolutely not a single issue focus kinda guy, nor was he so self-rightously judgemental and hostile in his dealings with man. SO the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority/Christian Right as it is now has never really had my support.

A good question you have posed, Mr Pan, and I shall attempt to posit my views in a constructive way. I agree with the Republican platform, for the most part, and so as such I don't think I would switch parties. Supporting individual candidates who, regardless of their party affiliation, agree with this platform, I could do, especially if the Rep candidate was in any way unattractive to me.

I'm facing this dilemma in this election with our senate race - the Tennessee Corker v Ford race. In the primary, Corker basically (imo) purchased the nomination running semi-truthful attack ads against challengers Bryant and Hillary. Hillary would have actually been the "more able to compromise" candidate than the three, and would have brought moderation to the senate. However, he could never have stood a chance against Mr. Ford. And I believe it's this civility that cost him the republican nod.

Both Ford and Corker are swinging hard now, and boy, it's getting brutal. As it stands, I'm still planning to vote for the party's man, but should Mr. Ford come out with some real substance ads and ideas, then by golly, he'll get my vote. As of yet, he hasn't, just more swinging and ducking.

My late father was a self-described "Harry Truman Democrat", but before he died he was heartsick that the party that he so loved had strayed so far from what my pop felt was HIS democratic party. If Sam Nunn from Georgia had run for King of the World, Pop would have voted for him. Or Bob Dole, though he's a Republican.

What we have on both sides is a sickening lack of a desire to even try to understand the other side's point of view, just a very virolent urge to attack. It's good to have one's ideals and beliefs, it's not good to condemn others for theirs. This concept is considered naive in today's political climate.

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

Ustwo

I love you too.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

this all seems very kumbaya to me.

i do not see the a priori problem with a certain degree of acrimony in politics--it would be better of course if this acrimony reflected meaningful debate based on reliable information in a context where the decisions of the people actually mattered in anything like a direct way--but we do not live in a democracy, we live in america.

we live in a context that is changing fundamentally very quickly and there is no coherent political ideology that addresses these changes coherently.
people seem to find themselves in a position of not being willing to look too hard at what is really happening around them, and so revert to assembling ad hoc positions from the various incoherent political positions they find already available around them. perhaps there is some internal momentum this process affords them and so it feels like cone is assembling coherence about the world when one is operating at several removes from that.

sometimes it appears to me that folk are simply not able to face radical change in the states--maybe it has something to do with the primary education system and its rigidity--its refusal to equip people with the requisite tools for independent thought. after all, education is social reproduction and so has a necessarily conservative bent to it.

on the other hand, system adjustment presupposes that folk are able to think about change coherently, which presupposes that people are given the intellectual tools to do that--but these tools also lead to problems of dissent so perhaps it appears functional to not provide them. but if you don't, the contemporary types of incoherence are a direct result. nad if the system of social reproduction is not adjusted, what will result is generation after generation of incoherence such that the united states will in the longer run slide with great noise and violence into the ash-heap of history and no-one in the united states will quie be sure why it happened.

neither political party in the states offers anything like a coherent vision of the world. neither seems to have the faintest idea what to do in the face of basic things like the wholesale restructuring of labor markets along more global lines and the problems of social reproduction these changes bring with them for nation-states. both parties seem more concerned with offering therapeutic palliatives than with actually risking a serious confrontation with problems that they do not really know how to address, that would require improvised solutions some of which would work, some of which would not. so we the people run away and work to convince ourselves that the single party state with two right wings that we find ourselves in is in itself coherent and that some god looks kindly over us all and so no matter how fucked up, no matter how worthless the propositions advanced by these factions of the political right are with reference to actual changes, actual problems, everything will work itself out because--well--nationalism says that we are the Elect and as the Elect we cannot slide as we are into decadence and so q.e.d. nothing to worry about.

what makes anyone able to imagine that the united states is functioning within a political spectrum that enables anything even remotely approaching coherent choices about a problematic future that people at this point do not fully understand? particularly given that both major parties are far more concerned about short-term survival than they are about addressing complex, difficult questions? on what possible basis is a choice between republican and democrat meaningful, really?

within the contemporary farce that is mass politics, i am inclined to vote democrat but with no illusions about their coherence--they are simply less offensive.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

I'd consider supporting the two main parties more enthusiastically if the vast majority of their active party profesionals either got out of politics or died in a fire.

ratbastid

I'd have a very hard time supporting the current crop of republicans, no matter what they do.

For me to suddenly be a GWB fan, he'd have to come clean about all the bullshit regarding Iraq, take responsibility for all of it, and be willing to deal with the consequences of it. That's the only way I can conceive of trusting him to have any integrity at all.

Then he (or whoever would replace him after his resignation) would need to present a coherant plan for ending the bleeding in Iraq. He'd have to end the ideological opposition to stem cell research. He'd have to come up with an education proposal that would actually leave no child behind. He'd have to reach out to an opposition congress and be willing to lead in a bi-partisan fashion.

He'd have to pledge not to use presidential signing statements. He'd have to restore the authority of the constitution and the rights that they have erased from it.

He'd need to legalize same-sex marriage. He'd need to loosen restrictions on abortion. He'd need to drastically curtail military spending and funnel that money into education. He'd need to make nice with the UN.

If the Republicans did that, I could concievably come to their side. In short, if they undid pretty much everything on their platform, I could be a Republican.

host

This post/responses have enough content to warrant their own thread, and have been split off into this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109321 If you want to continue this discussion, please follow that link and continue it there.

Thanks,
The Management
Welcome to the forum, Intense1. I have been very curious as to why the majority of Tennessee voters have voted for republican candidates since 2000, and you seem like someone with a reasonable demeanor who I can pose this question to:

Given that the vote of Mr. Gore's "homestaters" in 2000, had the direct effect of costing him the presidency, what have you and your fellow voters who have voted for republican candidates, gained by the shift away from Mr. Gore, and the democrats. I know what you have lost:

1.)The prestige, recognition, and tourism that would have flowed into Tennessee, if Gore had been elected.

2.)The political influence, translated into a higher flow of federal funds into Tennessee, if Tennessee had voted for Gore.

3.)The planning, right about now, and then the completion of a Gore presidential library, in Tennessee, that, along with Gore's birthplace, and his residence, would stimulate worldwide interest, and tourist dollars, and jobs, in Tennessee, as it will, for a long time to come, in Clinton's Arkansas.

4.)A balanced federal budget, replaced by an addition to the federal treasury debt that will mushroom the debt from $5414 billion, in 2001, to at least $9000 billion by Sept. 30, 2009.

5.)Open government....it's gone....reversed from a trend towards justification of the classification of every federal government document, to a new paradigm that began in 2001.....instead free access to documents must be justified, release to the public of presidential documents was delayed in a 2001 executive order, to the point that the presidential libraries complained about the emptiness of their stacks. Documents that had been de-classified, were reclassified, much to the chagrin, and puzzlement of historians who already possessed them.

6.)The peace, and a reputation of the US as a country that was reluctant to ever go to war, and only did so when it was first attacked by another country. The US is now mired in an avoidable war in Iraq that disproportionally claims the lives and limbs of military personnel from less affluent, and more rural states....like Tennessee. The other loss is the opportunity cost of sinking money and a hopelessly flawed military strategy in Iraq, vs. the lost opportunity to lessen the amount of the federal treasury debt, or spend some of the money wasted in Iraq, on new schools, and infrastructure repair, in Tennessee and in other US states.

Good relations and the trust of many other nations' governments, and their citizenry, has also been lost because Iraq was invaded and occupied.

7.)The boundary between church and state....it has definitely been blurred since the 2000 election.

8.)The compact between the federal government and workers rights and workplace safety. The NLRB has been stacked, since 2001, with 5 appointees who comprise the entire board, who are pro-management, none come from a labor, or union organzing background. OSHA has, until the deaths of several miners last year, adopted a policy of lax enforcement and industry self inspection of workplace safety hazards and remedies.

9.)Strong federal Environmental protection iniatives, with a focus on improving air quality. The <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/14/Business/EPA_eases_air_polluti.shtml">enforcement intiatives that resulted in TECO</a> in Tampa, Fl, dramatically cleaning up it's act.

10.)Bankruptcy protection for individuals. Did the tradeoff of legal protection from debt collection....the ability to make a clean start, after what reputable studies demonstrated is more often bankruptcy induced by illness, worth lowered interest on credit card borrowing, or increased profits to the banks that issue the credit cards, vs. the loss of the option, by Tennesseans, who "enjoy", on average, lower per capita income to begin with, after a financial setback caused by an illness, a fresh start with their debts erased?
Hasn't the only beneficiary of "the Bankruptcy Reform Act", been the financial corps. who successfully lobbied for it's passage?

I could go on....but I'm sure that you get the idea. What economic benefits have come (or will come to your state), and what have Tennesseans gained, vs. what they could have retained, if they had voted for Gore, instead of for Bush? Is the air or water cleaner, are workers enjoying better or even equal protection, is your state a safer or more popular tourist destination, because you vote republican? Do the economic "benefits" to your state and it's people, outweight the impact of an addition of $3600 billion to total treasury debt? Wouldn't a portion of that debt, if it had to be accrued, had been better spent if a mximum of $2000 billion had been borrowed to pay the SSI Trust fund debt, which would have made funding of SSI "privatization", actually practical, and possible?

If most people vote republican, the consequence will be continued "one party rule" of the federal government. Your answers to the list of what Tennessee has gained, to replace the losses on the ten category list above, may give you insight into the continued consequences of voting for increasingly unaccountable, unresponsive, and secret, government administration.

What are the pluses that you perceive, for voting republican, vs. democrat?
I may seem partisan, but I started out neutral, many years ago, and I read a lot. I don't find any benefit for the people of a below average per capita wealth and income state, to vote to deny a "son" of that state, the presidency in exchange for what they've gotten in return.

Is anything that I've posted, untrue? Why would you even consider voting to keep this party in total control? Would democrats do less for Tennesseans? How?

Gilda

Ok, forget my first post. I want to join Ratbastid's Republican party. I agree with nearly every word of this.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Intense1

This post/responses have enough content to warrant their own thread, and have been split off into this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109321 If you want to continue this discussion, please follow that link and continue it there.

Thanks,
The Management
Greetings. Go get a drink and a snack folks, this might be a long one.

Host, thanks for the questions. I can tell you have thought this through very thoroughly, and can appreciate your candor and obvious intelligence. You might want to know, though, that you have come into a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

For the past two decades I have not lived in Tennessee full time. I have lived in various places in Asia, mostly in Japan (7 and a half years - I'm hoping this will get some solidarity with Grace sympathy) and Thailand (hoping for some "awe, she works with impoverished kids" sympathy)

(edit: Since Grace is with Gilda and not Host, I'm hoping that I will get Gilda/Grace sympathy by proxy )

Actually, I am not looking for sympathy, just a bit of consideration as I write from my feelings on being a Tennessean who did not vote for our son, Al. I am joined by millions of others who did the same, and because of the number of D's and R's in our state, I am joined by some good number of Tennessee democrats.

Your points are in BOLD ITALIC.

1.)The prestige, recognition, and tourism that would have flowed into Tennessee, if Gore had been elected.

Tennessee, the Volunteer State, already has egads! loads of tourism, what with being birthplace of the blues and the home of the ever living Elvis (West Tennessee/Memphis), Country Music Capital of the World (Middle Tennessee/Nashville), and the wonder that is the Great Smoky Mountains (East Tennessee/Knoxville). Lesser well-known are the, 1) Tennessee Walking Horse Celebration in Shelbyville, 2) Columbia Mule Festival in, well, Columbia, 3) the Hermitage, birthplace and family home of Pres. Andrew Jackson in Donelson, 4) the Museum of Appalacia, in Norris, 5) Oak Ridge Atomic Energy Museum in, well, Oak Ridge, and 6) Davy Crocket's Log Cabin outside of Jefferson City, which is my favorite because my uncle took me there when I was six and bought me a tomahawk which I promptly used to hit my big brother over the head. Plus, there's always the world famous Bucksnort Trout Farm, in lovely scenic McEwen, just west of Nashville, for those who really want to live on the edge.

Recognition is fine and all that, but we've already produced three presidents - Mr. Jackson, James K. Polk, and Andrew Johnson - more than any of our other bordering states except for Virginia.

Prestige from being Al Gore's home state? Hah! Al hadn't spent hardly more than three days straight in our fair state since he was running for Senate. Most of Al's life (pre 2000) has been spent in D.C., what with his dad being in politics. None of his primary or secondary schooling was in Tennessee, if I am not mistaken. And he often spent down times in Tipper's parents' home state Virginia.

2.)The political influence, translated into a higher flow of federal funds into Tennessee, if Tennessee had voted for Gore.

Oh, but you see, our state has a balanced budget that has come from something called "Tobacco Money" (having not been around so much in the past 2 decades, I'm not really sure what that is.) We have a state run healthcare program (TennCare), which is, incidentally, eating into that Tobacco Money quicker than a Southern Baptist does a casserole. We have the TVA, which is the world's largest electricity provider (or something like that.) And we have the Tennessee Titans, which we're hoping will generate some sympathy donations from kind-hearted football lovin' folk.

3.)The planning, right about now, and then the completion of a Gore presidential library, in Tennessee, that, along with Gore's birthplace, and his residence, would stimulate worldwide interest, and tourist dollars, and jobs, in Tennessee, as it will, for a long time to come, in Clinton's Arkansas.

Don't want it. With a man so boring as Al, do you think people would actually plan their vacations around visiting the "Al Gore Presidential Library"? We could have offered a package deal - catch the Gore Library, and then take a day enjoying the Bucksnort Trout Farm or the Columbia Mule festival, which, incidentally, actually draws thousands from all over the world. Seriously, it could only be possible to build it in Nashville (he's from Carthage/Sparta, which is a couple of hours outside Nashville, and not a tremendously easy to visit area), but a Gore Library visit would only be another half-day visit tacked on by those who have come to see the Country Music Hall of Fame Museum/Grand Ol' Opry.

Now if he could have built a replica of the very office in which he had invented the internet, now, that I would even pay to see.

4.)A balanced federal budget, replaced by an addition to the federal treasury debt that will mushroom the debt from $5414 billion, in 2001, to at least $9000 billion by Sept. 30, 2009.

Now you're speculating - no one can tell what he would have done. He might have run us into debt investing gajillions of dollars in solar corn windmills. Or, what's more likely, he might have plundered the military and left us in very dire straights in the aftermath of 9/11.

5.)Open government....it's gone....reversed from a trend towards justification of the classification of every federal government document, to a new paradigm that began in 2001.....instead free access to documents must be justified, release to the public of presidential documents was delayed in a 2001 executive order, to the point that the presidential libraries complained about the emptiness of their stacks. Documents that had been de-classified, were reclassified, much to the chagrin, and puzzlement of historians who already possessed them.

Have no idea about this...... but again, speculation. He might have opened ALL documents to historians, and vital secrets could have been revealed. On the internet. Which he invented. Or he could have hired Sandy Berger to go in to the Archives and stash more documents down his pants. Who knows?

6.)The peace, and a reputation of the US as a country that was reluctant to ever go to war, and only did so when it was first attacked by another country. The US is now mired in an avoidable war in Iraq that disproportionally claims the lives and limbs of military personnel from less affluent, and more rural states....like Tennessee. The other loss is the opportunity cost of sinking money and a hopelessly flawed military strategy in Iraq, vs. the lost opportunity to lessen the amount of the federal treasury debt, or spend some of the money wasted in Iraq, on new schools, and infrastructure repair, in Tennessee and in other US states.

Good relations and the trust of many other nations' governments, and their citizenry, has also been lost because Iraq was invaded and occupied.

Or, because of his tree-hugging ozone-sniffing beliefs, we could have been a laughing stock of all technologically advanced nations, not to mention put in financial straights because of countries like China and India who were not included in the Gore-generated Kyoto Protocols, which he would have probably tried to enforce by retooling it into some sort of Executive Order. We could have been buddy buddy with everyone, never upsetting anyone - particularly the Europeans, keeping a warm and fuzzy kumbaya feeling, and been attacked by terrorists anyway. And, I might add, the list of democratic leaders who said "Sadaam has/is pursuing WMD, he must be stopped" is a long one. Look it up, it'll probably have Al's name.

But again - you're speculating. He might have not done anything to Sadaam, leaving him in power, and Sadaam could have decimated another 100 villages of Kurds or Shiites. Sadaam might have built up his chemical/biological weapons stash, and used it again. Al might have moved the UN for more resolutions, and more resolutions and more resolutions, and then UN resolutions would become even more meaningless and powerless than they are now, fit to only become recycled toilet tissue, which is basically what they've become anyways.

7.)The boundary between church and state....it has definitely been blurred since the 2000 election.

Where? Show me. I want to know. I see no law that has been enacted by congress that has interfered with or endorsed religion of any kind. But if you're saying that a citizen doesn't have the right to practice his/her religious beliefs freely - even if the citizen is the President - then that's a bit more than a blurring, it's an infringement of one person's rights.

8.)The compact between the federal government and workers rights and workplace safety. The NLRB has been stacked, since 2001, with 5 appointees who comprise the entire board, who are pro-management, none come from a labor, or union organzing background. OSHA has, until the deaths of several miners last year, adopted a policy of lax enforcement and industry self inspection of workplace safety hazards and remedies.

A president has the right to put whomever he/she wants on the various boards of government, as was evidenced by the Clinton administration's loading of the Civil Rights Commission. Now, I'll agree the mine safety issue has been a disaster for decades, encompassing the presidencies of D's and R's. It's a mess, for sure, and does need to be reformed so that the protection of miners is at the top of all other issues. A better labor union solution for miners is something I would go for. But I'm a Teamser's daughter, so labor is not such a "right-wingy" topic for me. My mom is more financially secure because she receives my dad's Teamster's survivor pension, and I'm grateful for that. Granted, that money probably has come from some hefty Vegas winnings...... hee

9.)Strong federal Environmental protection iniatives, with a focus on improving air quality. The enforcement intiatives that resulted in TECO in Tampa, Fl, dramatically cleaning up it's act.

I'm not familiar with your example, and I'm too caught up in my cold right now to try and think through the research on it - sorry. But "strong" initiatives? At the expense of what? And what responsibility have the individual states in this? Would Al have come down hard on businesses and thrown tens of thousands out of work just for faster results? The business community was afraid of that, if I remember the various news/economic reports and polls at that time. (sorry again - can't site any sources but my memory)

10.) Bankruptcy protection for individuals. Did the tradeoff of legal protection from debt collection....the ability to make a clean start, after what reputable studies demonstrated is more often bankruptcy induced by illness, worth lowered interest on credit card borrowing, or increased profits to the banks that issue the credit cards, vs. the loss of the option, by Tennesseans, who "enjoy", on average, lower per capita income to begin with, after a financial setback caused by an illness, a fresh start with their debts erased?
Hasn't the only beneficiary of "the Bankruptcy Reform Act", been the financial corps. who successfully lobbied for it's passage?

Here I have personal family anecdotal evidence (hee - I call it evidence.) My brother's wife (ex now) loved getting those credit card offers in the mail, and by the time they were going to be evicted from their home because she hadn't been paying their mortgage, they had accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, with nothing really to show for it but mountains of toys for my nephews and records of cash advances which promptly went to her cocaine dealer. As she was supposed to be paying the bills, he was devastated to discover the extent to which she had gone for her various habits (Xanax, valium, coke, crack, booze, boyfriends, toys, videos). He found all the credit card bills - in a literally huge pile - on the floor of a closet. And before you feel sorry for her for addiction, don't. She took my nephews along for numerous meetings with her dealer/boyfriend, and by all accounts even drove stoned with them in the car. In the fall out, she filed for divorce, using the services of a lawyer who was her mother's friend from highschool (also an ex-judge in our county, very respected.) My brother didn't have the money to pay a simple 1,000 dollar retainer for a lawyer, so HER sister loaned him the money (my mom is on a limited income and couldn't afford to help him.)

And now? She isn't working - hasn't in several years - and has remarried. My brother didn't file for bankruptcy, he's paying off those debts little by little, while paying child support and getting the boys on weekends. My brother wouldn't think of filing - our dad taught us that a man pays his debts. He works two jobs to do so. She bitched when he stopped paying spousal support after her marriage.

The kicker? She volunteered in Al Gore's 2000 campaign.

------------

Yes, I could go on as well, and as you've noticed, I already have!!! I'm not so sure that we could have benefited materially from Al's having been president - again, speculation. But what I do know is this: Tennessee did not forsake Al Gore, Al Gore forsook Tennessee. He did not represent the values of our state, so our state did not vote for him. West Tennessee is very democratic, East Tennessee is very republican. Middle Tennessee is where the battle is won, and he couldn't win the hearts and minds of Nashville. Period. Full stop.

We have 2 Republican Senators, and have since Al left the senate. Our Representatives are 5/4, dems to reps. Right now our Gov is a dem, but the one before him wasn't. And even our democrats are fairly conservative, compared to many nationally. So when you castigate us for not voting for more liberals, you might want to check and see just what kind of state Tennessee is first, and what we hold as important in regards to values. We are southern, and we are for the most part, conservative, even democrats.

We didn't kill the Limburgh baby, we didn't cause the stock market crash of '29, we didn't cause the great depression, we didn't kill Kennedy, we didn't shoot J.R., and we didn't cause Albert Gore, Jr. to lose the 2000 election. He did that, all by himself (not the other things, just the election.)

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

shakran

To change my views on Bush he'd basically have to become not only competent, but honest overnight and then work DAMN hard to undo the horrific damage he's done to the country.

To change my views on the Republicans, they'd have to become Republicans again. Used to be I might not disagree with them but at least I could respect them because they had things they believed in, and that they believed were good for the country. Then the neocons marched in and took over the party and everything went straight to hell.

If you wanna call that blaming the other party, then so be it. Of course it's the other party's beliefs and actions that influence my views about them, so I really don't see how your question can be answered without "blaming" the party that you don't like.

Intense1

This post/responses have enough content to warrant their own thread, and have been split off into this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109321 If you want to continue this discussion, please follow that link and continue it there.

Thanks,
The Management
Sorry, Host, didn't answer your other questions before. I shall attempt to do so now.

If most people vote republican, the consequence will be continued "one party rule" of the federal government. Your answers to the list of what Tennessee has gained, to replace the losses on the ten category list above, may give you insight into the continued consequences of voting for increasingly unaccountable, unresponsive, and secret, government administration.

First, did you think you could convert me? Hee hee..... I am resistant to your solar-powered political ray-gun, as I have on my trusty nuclear republican armor.

Haven't you noticed that in our political spectrum, power is a pendulum? It shifts from left to right, and because of that, things seem to balance out. In the 60's, people were tired of the Johnson Vietnam war stuff, and so didn't support his party's candidate, they went with Nixon. After the crap that was Watergate, people didn't want any reminders of Nixon and dishonesty, so they went with Carter, the more "moral" choice. After Carter, people didn't want the sense of helplessness that went with the Iran hostage situation NOR the whole energy crisis, so they went with Reagan, the "power" guy. And so on. Political power is just that way, and I think America is better for it. Even if it means that my party is out of power for a while - ESPECIALLY if it means this. Sitting on the sidelines tends to cause a group to sharpen what they believe, and that can only mean better choices for us citizens.

And, just to mention, republicans have only been in power of both houses of congress for the past 12 years. Democrats had it a long time before then, and yet were vulnerable when the electorate were presented with a very consise, well-writen plan for where republicans wanted the country to go (Contract for America). The electorate went for it, and in a mighty way.

What are the pluses that you perceive, for voting republican, vs. democrat?

While I admire the traits of some democratic candidates, on the whole, I trust republicans more. Especially with all the Foley stuff going on. Yes, that is a strange opening of this point, but let me explain. Back in the 70's when two congressmen were caught with page seduction issues, one (the republican) resigned, one didn't (the democrat). The democrat went on to stick it out and received A STANDING OVATION by the democrats on the floor of the house, THREE TIMES. He had sex with a 17 year old girl, and he got a STANDING OVATION? Where, I ask you, is the honor in the democratic party? WHERE? Mr. Foley resigned, even before all the stuff came out about the IM's he'd sent that boy. And what are the democrats doing? CALLING FOR RESIGNATIONS. Yes, I know there is all the who-knew-what-when stuff, but the fact remains: Republicans take responsibility for their actions, democrats wave off their responsibilities and are APPLAUDED for it. Where is the honor, I ask you?

That's not to mention the Louisianna representative who was in possession of 90,000 frozen dollars. Did Ms. Pelosi ask for his resignation? No. Why not? Because democrats want to keep that seat, and if they don't address it, then it doesn't become real. You let a republican get caught with frozen bucks and he'd be hoist from the house ceiling.

I may seem partisan, but I started out neutral, many years ago, and I read a lot. I don't find any benefit for the people of a below average per capita wealth and income state, to vote to deny a "son" of that state, the presidency in exchange for what they've gotten in return.

You seem to think we're all just sitting here barefooted counting our Food Stamps and hoping that we can make ends meet. Tennessee is a very prosperous state on the whole. If you consider that many elements in the stats regarding poverty include the Appalachian region, then perhaps you can understand that it's actually not so poor here. Our unemployment rate is something like 5.8 percent (yes, above national, but it's not in the double digits like many states are) and we've seen a net job growth of 55,000 in the last couple of years. Coupled with the fact that we don't have a state income tax and property values are very attractive, it makes great sense for you to move here!!! Yea!! Come on! Join us....you know you want to. We have hundreds of universities and colleges that are top-notch schools, and a very diverse population. And we have Elvis. He always shows up, somewhere or another, looking for donuts, thank you very much.

An article in the Tennessean newspaper a few months ago told of a few families who had moved to Tennessee from other states, most notably, California. They had sold their small houses in their home states and moved here, and were AMAZED at what kind of house they could buy for their money. And equally amazed at how cheap is is to live here, compared to their former home states. And some of them, self-described middle class, moved into Brentwood, a more affluent section of Nashville.

Is anything that I've posted, untrue? Why would you even consider voting to keep this party in total control? Would democrats do less for Tennesseans? How?

Democrats could do well for Tennessee, just show me the democrats you have in mind. I have no interest in voting for someone who does not represent our values (I include all of Tennessee's values), and I'm not alone. There's millions like me. We're here, we're conservative, get over it.

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

Paq

honestly...

in order for me to be a republican

they would probably have to jump back at least 100 yrs. I would vote for Teddy Roosevelt..and that is about the last republican i would have voted for..Then again, there are very few presidents during the 20th cent that i would have voted for. TR, FDR, truman, jfk maybe, and clinton. Not htat i would have voted against the others, just that i don't think i would have voted 'for' them at the time.

Now, for me to vote for any party, they would have to separate from the fringe groups. i despise the religious right. I despise that the current regime goes against stem cell research based on that. I HATE the current argument for/pro abortion. I don't think it's going to change and i feel it is being used far too often to mobilize a group of people. It should not be a matter of national politics. Sorry, it just shouldn't be something to be dragged out every 2 yrs...kinda like th war on terror. Things are quiet until election time...

I wish both parties would slide away from the negative attack ads. Seriously, if you cannot run on what you believe in, you should not run on what you think the other person did wrong. that drives me nuts 10,000,000 times more than people who run based on which way the polls go this week.

I would love for a return to accountability to Washington. Both parties are guilty, but it's just that everyone seems to have something or someone to blame. Perfect case in point right now, M Foley....goes from Alcoholic to abused by clergy to god knows what else right now...seriously, say, "I'm disturbed" get treatment, then come back and he'd probably be re-elected...as of now, though, his career is gone and he's taking everyone down with him.

Seriously, the American public is very forgiving when it comes to their leaders. JFK comes out, says, "Hi, i f**ked up with the bay of pigs, it was all my fault" boom, ratings through the roof. People respect a leader who can admit mistakes instead of one who passes on the blame. Whatever happened to "The buck stops here" approach.

I just feel as if a huge change in politics is coming along very...very quickly. I think the people are getting fed up with being pulled in either direction, more and more from where their fundamental convictions lie. I am more on the democratic side, but i see my party slipping away from where i think it should be. I have friends on the republican side who feel their party is gone haywire. We can agree on SO many issues, but yet, we are both labeled republican or democrat and are lumped in with the fringe groups...

Sorry for going way off topic, there ,but honestly, right now, i'd probably go for any party that would just step up and take responsibility.

__________________
Live.

Chris

Intense1

Hey Paq - have you thought of starting a party? I'm serious, you and your friends believe the same way, why not start a political party to represent what you believe? That's the great thing about our country - we can assemble in political parties as we choose, sanctioned by law. Go for it! So many feel as you do - get in touch with them and form a party. Or if not a party, make a faction inside an existing party, a faction that will have power in order to get your message across.

Hey - it's America! Go for it! Present your platform. Many of us would be very interested in reading it. Seriously, dude, go for it.

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

Bill O'Rights

This...almost sums up my opinion. The only difference is, I don't support any political party. Labels, such as Liberal and Conservative, annoy me.
I tend to run the scale of "right" and "left", based on specific issues...not party rhetoric. I weigh, I evaluate, and I conclude based upon my own value system. I owe alegience to no political party. Although, I do identify heavily with the Libertarians.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

flstf

The Republicans would have to be for limiting the size of the central government dramatically and take a more hands off, less religious oriented approach on social issues and adobt a more live and let live social agenda.

The Democrats would have to be for limiting the size of the central government dramatically and take a more hands off, less politically correct oriented approach on social issues and adobt a more live and let live social agenda.

ratbastid

I don't get this. You're a libertarian, or you claim to be. Yet you support Bush while he evicerates our freedoms. Your international communications can be evesdropped on with the slightest suspicion now, and it's apparently legal. The guy suspended habeas corpus, and you're still on his side. Doesn't all this raise your libertarian hackles?

If not, I urge you to reconsider the above sentence.

Gilda

Grace was born in Hawaii. I'd be happy to sympathize if our belief systems overlapped a bit more, but alas, I'm afraid this is not so, and I think I can safely say that Grace would feel the same.

After a bit of research on Ford and Corker, I've concluded that Ford is quite a bit too conservative for my taste, and if I were in Tennessee, I'd likely be voting for a third party candidate, probably a Green, depending on what his/her platform was.

I'm not a party loyalist by any means. For example, my family is not a big fan of FDR for the obvious reasons.

I also noticed in your response a reference to Gore being "boring". This isn't a direct response to your line, but I do find this comment interesting. This was always the line of attack comedians took regarding him, and while true, I'm not sure why it's relevant. He's stiff and boring. So what? Where does this enter into his ability to do the job? Why would anybody take this into account when voting? I thought the guy was dull as dirt, but still voted for for him because I thought him more qualified than Bush and found his policies to be more in line with where I thought the country should be headed.

Bush is certainly more colorful and interesting, but that makes him more entertaining, not a better president.

Note, this isn't a commentary on Gore v. Bush, but on why a candidate being "boring" is a bad thing.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

ubertuber

Gilda: perhaps the antithesis of "boring" is not entertaining, but charismatic. Charisma is a functional quality in a political leader. Some, but not many, have been successful without it.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

host

Maybe it's just me.....but I would be embarrassed if it was pointed out that I had posted with certainty, an opinion that Al gore is "boring". Sheesh....who is the politician who was painted with the accusation of connections to "hollywood liberals", and who is the 2000 candidate for the presidency who is inarticulate, claimed "Jesus" as his "favorite philosopher", had no inclination for international travel, and his since been reported to have an obsession with "brush clearing", as he cloisters himself for the equivalent of a year during his 5 years as president...on his isolated ranch.

Could the erroneous impression of Gore, be the result of an investment in political propaganda?
Comparing Gore to Bush, how could the articulate, well traveled, former combat journalist with an unbridled excitment for the promise that the internet hinted of, and an outspoken blonde wife, possibly be eclipsed....in the boredom department, by a man with a faked Texas drawl, the incurious, George Bush. <b>I encounter too many people, IMO, who don't know where they got what they "think" that they think</b>
<b>In august, I posted several articles about DCI here:</b>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=17

<b>Only expensive partisan propaganda campaigns could successfully shift opinion to conclude that it was Al Gore who was "more boring", in 2000:</b>
Compare Al Gore to this incurious and inarticulate "guy". He had not travelled to Europe, as an adult, before the 2000 election. He preferes to spend all of his time, secluded on his ranch, "clearing brush".....but the disinformation campaign to convince folks most likely to agree that it is Al Gore who is boring, continues, as the first article in this post documents,,,,to broadcast that disinformation about Al Gore!

genuinegirly

My opinion, as follows. As briefly described as possible.


It would take a significant number of honest people standing up and doing something right for the people that they represent.

See above statement.

I don't find government to be an entity that betters the nation and world. I see that people improve the world. Some might be politicians. Most seem to direct their energies to their cause and ignore the government as best they can.
This stated, the government should not try to meet halfway to better the world. The government should meet halfway to form regulation that will permit those who work to do good to continue in their work without disruption.


If I knew, I would spend my time as a political analyst rather than a Botanist.


I don't believe in the kinds of compromises mentioned by the thread-starter. I see such compromises as interfering with our lives.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

host

You might discern that I have trouble accepting the L. Brent Bozell III/Ruppert Murdoch led, "noise machine" that manipulates less wary and curious voters into voting against their own best interests, time after time:
It's a lot like Nascar..... the folks who are sucked into the propaganda message.....<b>"347 [news stories ]about Al Gore wearing earth tones"</b>, actually pay for the broadcasts of foxnews and Rush Limbaugh, and the "research" on "liberal media bias" from MRC.org , via the advertising revenue that their "attentiveness" and "ditto-head" loyalty to these "media outlets", garner for the corporate owners.

Nascar is the only sport where the fans buy hats and outfits "festooned" with the corporate logos of the race car team sponsors, ingenuously transforming unwitting "fans" into walking sandwich sign-like, mini billboards for the sponsors, and the fans pay to do it!
I suspect that one difference between Karl Rove and I is that I am preoccupied with the question of how and why peopl "know what they think that they know", especially when it comes to examining and supporting my own opinions.....whereas Rove simply and masterfully exploits the fact that many people don't question their own opinions, to the point that Rove can simply build on their existing misconceptions.

Fascinating and tragic, as far as the effect of the "unquestioning", steadfast in their misconceived "convictions", complicated by the added influence on some, of religious doctrine.......voting "with Rove", and the implications that has on the direction of our country.

An indication is the apparent lack of perception, on the part of all who disagree with me, on any subject that I post about, that it is a good idea to test and validate opinions, by defending them.

The defense doesn't have to be to the degree that I do it, but some links and excerpts from non-partisan, corporate media news sources, such as from ABC, CBS, NBC, Rueters, AP, LA Trib, Chicago Trib., NY Times, the Wapo, or from Time or Newsweek, just to point the rest of us to what supports your politcal opinions, will enhance your credibility. We seem to be headed in the opposite direction....some posters have stopped posted any links to the article excerpts that they post at TFP.

If some of us receive most of our information from traditional news sources, and the rest of us choose to shun those sources, in favor of "alternative" news sources, can we even speak the same language, much less agree on any issue? I lay out almost all of my opinion influencing sources....yet, ironically, the responses that I receive, heavily question my credibility. The questioning generally comes from folks who don't disclose the sources that shape their opinions, or when they do, the sources are always from "alternative" sites that almost always display a mesage that labels the MSM as guilty of consistant "liberal media bias", and are mostly, unusually republican oriented. What is up with that?

ubertuber

I haven't voted Republican in 6 years. To get me back, the party would have to start talking about fiscal restraint: government spending has grown 45% since 2001 and we can't even blame bloated mal-administrated social programs. To quote Dick Armey, we're waiting for an realistic, adult conversation about the state of this country's fiscal affairs.

There would also have to be some more realistic talk about Iraq. There are more options than "stay the course" and "cut and run". That is a preposterous dichotomy. I need to hear some candidates that are "off message" but on-topic. Speaking of being "on message", let's worry about that less too. I don't care whether there is a GWOT (Global War on Terror) or a GSAVE (Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism). More honest talk and less branding would get my attention.

Lastly, with all of the legitimate things to talk about (Social Security, National Deficit, GSAVE/GWAT, tax cuts that are neither eradicated nor made permanent. etc.) I'm tired about hearing about crap like gay marriage amendments. That's like trying to decide on whether to paint or re-side the garage while your house is sliding down a hill. It may or may not need to be done, but it certainly isn't the most important thing happening.

As for the democrats, I don't know what they need to do, but they need to do something. I have no idea what sort of coherent stance they're putting together, and it's not like I don't pay attention to the news. Anybody but Bush didn't work, and anybody but republicans won't work much better. I need to know what democrats would do if given the opportunity to control the agenda, not what they WON'T do.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

No because unlike you I don't see any evicerated freedom, I see over reacting by the left looking for something to over react to so they can claim Bush evicerated freedom.

I am not in the least bit worried about my freedoms. Unlike the October suprise by CBS in 2004, the democrats found one that would stick because there was truth to it and should get some good gains in November (I'd like to scoff at the fact they once again avoid pushing their issues, but thats another matter, they found a boy-emailer who may not have touched anyone but thats enough to draw people away from issues and go into a punishing mode) and power will shift, we will see power shift again in 2008.

There hasn't been a war where we didn't lose some freedoms, and being this is an unconventional war, we have lost less than usual. Technologies change, risks change, you can't expect us to lay there spread eagle because someone is worried the government may get a list of the porn sites they visited.

We currently do not have a libertarian government, we are not set up as such, we do not have a populous willing embrace it, and most people don't even know what it is beyond legalizing drugs. As such I vote my closest kin which is in fact the Republican party, its not perfect, its not my ideal, but its better in the long run from my point of view then the socialists. There is a reason almost all the Libertarians fall into the Republican fold (and whenever I find a left winger who claims to be one, they have been utterly clueless on what the Libertarians are).

Perhaps in another generation, perhaps not, people will be ready for a more libertarian view point, but there will be blood in the streets when the parasitic classes lose their meal ticket and suddenly have to work or starve.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

"the parasitic classes"....
and who might they be, ustwo?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ratbastid

Ustwo: posturing aside, the short version of your post is is "My partisanship overwhelms my principles. I am therefore willing to defend any loss of freedom in the name of national security."

Face it, bub: you're not a Libertarian. You're a Republican.

Ustwo

Well if you say so it MUST be true. I mean NO libertarians vote republican after all.

Face it bub, you don't know me and quite frankly I found this last post of yours insulting. I dont' see any real loss of freedom, sorry, so why should I get up in arms over phantoms? Libertarians are not frothing at the mouth types who go crazy over non-issues. I save that for other political viewpoints.

There is only one reason the Democrats want Libertarians to vote Libertarian, and its not because it will cause the election of Libertarians. They try every election, but most of us see there is no hope for a Libertarian America right now and we would rather deal with the imperfect republicans over the more imperfect democrats.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

roachboy, I was beginning to think that he might be referring to these examples of "the parasite classes"
Illegal Union Busting Wal-Mart Exec. Thomas Coughlin sentenced:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr8.html

Anddrew Fastow, criminal Enron CEO, responsible for loss of life savings of many employees, sentenced to 6 years:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...E97%257D&cid=0

......but then, I read this post:
Since when does what the receiver of the insult, "finds", of any importance, around here? This is the benchmark, the "standard"....you defined it, deal with it:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=107387&page=2

and the following ones...these are insulting:

dc_dux

I agree that Liberatarians vote Repub more often then Dem.

But for the life of me I cant understand why a true Liberatarian would support a party that wants to legislate when life begins or who can marry

or that put American forces in harms way in places that do not pose a direct and immenent threat to the nation's security

or that provides subsidies to the major oil companies, price supports to agri-business and patents to big business for generic business practices at the expense of a true free market.

or that wants to limit personal expression through a flag burning amendment

or that want to allow government to have access to private phone conversations and medical (and other personal) records

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ubertuber

Quoted for truth. That's why I haven't gone republican in 6 years.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

host I'm already married.

I'm glad we agree there. Now I'll help show you why.

Minor issues. I'm not going to base my government on if abortion is infantacide or not, nor would I care if two men can get married. The first issue is not a libertarian issue, I think you can be a libertarian and still think life begins at conception, the second is a 'oh well'.

True, and this is one place I do seperate myself from the libertarian platform a bit. I find the current global climate one that requires a bit of 'world police' we are in that spot now, and to ignore it is not in our best interest. Also you seem to imply that this is a Republican only trait, which is not indicated by history in the least.

And my alternative would be? The democrat economic plan? A true free market would be great, but voting republican gets me far closer than any democrat vote.

You know, when I wake up in the morning and dress for work, I'm damn proud I'm in a country that lets me burn the flag, it brings a tear to my eye. Well no really it means shit to me, as this is even more a non-issue than abortion or gay marriage. Its not like a flag burning amendment would prevent such works of art as "piss christ". I'll also note you can still burn the flag, so no harm no foul there.

The medical privacy laws are a joke, and I agree they suck, and odds are I know a lot more about them than you do for obvious reasons. I also know they are nothing compared to the lack of privacy you get with socialized medicine, so I shouldn't vote republican why again?

I also used to work for a small phone company before I went to dental school. There is no such thing as a private telephone conversation, so you might want to rethink that one all together. Also it is not against libertarian thought to conduct racial profiling, this would include wiretapping of people who have a greater than average chance of being a terrorist. Libertarianism isn't just a bend over and take it philosophy.

I would love to take the religous right right out of the Republican party, but that would be like taking the loony left out of the democratic party at this point. Neither would survive. As such I am making my choice for who I vote for based on what fits my desires the BEST, not perfectly.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

I responded to your post, via <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2134108#post2134108">a new thread:</a>

pan6467

This is what I posted for the thread's OP.

Instead of telling us what we could do to better the country and work for compromise, we got answers pointing fingers, personal attacks, and so on.

I simply asked what it would take for YOU to meet halfway and work to better the country. What it would take for YOU to find people who could work on that halfway point and compromises.

All I asked and yet, people still fight, still refuse even in a thread to just imagine for a second compromising their political parties and beliefs to benefit the nation.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

pan: what makes you think that positioning yourself between the two american conservative parties is an act that in any way "betters the country"?

seriously--i made an argument that both parties are incoherent, that opposition to both can be understood as an act meant (at the level of intention at least) of engendering a wholly different type of conversation than you have now---but you decide, for whatever reason, that working for the better means one thing and that is your thing.
why is that?
if the framework is incoherent, what good comes of sitting around in a circle trying to like each other at the middle of it?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

Because, IMHO a 2 party system each able to take their extremists and find compromise within their party can bring forth compromises with the other and work torward a better future.

If you have more parties, you still end up with 2 major parties compromising with the lower ones..... except then you have 1 or 2 that hold just enough votes to get whatever they want to keep the majority party in control. In other words coalitions. And coalitins don't work.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

so those european parliamentary systems that function--with a greater degree of democratic responsiveness (for example in a parliamentary system we could already be rid of the bush administration and almost inevitably would be by now--but not here...)---those systems are what? flukes? or is there some way i do not know about in which they "do not work"?

i really do not understand the argument you are making, pan.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

But the difference is in the tradition. The US has enough problems dealing with 2 parties, I honestly don't see it working on more (although I personally want to believe in a third party and want to believe it would work.....the more rational side of me doesn't see it happening).

The parliamentary system could also come back and bite us on the ass because the checks and balances are not as great as they are here.

We have the best form of government in the world, when it is working.

We have the best political system in the world, when it is working.

What we lack, right now and have for some time, is true compromise between the parties and too much unnecessary red tape and hoops to jump through.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"