Neo-cons have screwed up many things. They have become big government pork barrel politicians. I am waiting for the next Newt Gingrich to appear in the Republican party.
Why don't you just ditch the party and go to the new one. The whole Democrat-Republican duopoly is bullshit and the main reason why things are so messed up now IMHO.
Neo-cons have screwed up many things. They have become big government pork barrel politicians. I am waiting for the next Newt Gingrich to appear in the Republican party.
Why don't you just ditch the party and go to the new one. The whole Democrat-Republican duopoly is bullshit and the main reason why things are so messed up now IMHO.
Because the US is pretty much stuck with a two party system. You can go third party in local and state elections but not on the national scale. Even if you manage to elect a third party person to the House or the Senate they have to join with one of the major parties or be ignored.
Because the US is pretty much stuck with a two party system. You can go third party in local and state elections but not on the national scale. Even if you manage to elect a third party person to the House or the Senate they have to join with one of the major parties or be ignored.
Well things certainly won't change with that attitude. I guess it's this kind of reasoning that gives them their power.
I am waiting for the next Newt Gingrich to appear in the Republican party.
You mean Mr. women can't fight in trenches because they get "infections" every thirty days, all men have the instinct to "hunt giraffes", etc.? Let alone his actual public policy. (Yeah, I was like 12 when he was in power, and even I could see he was a dumbass.) Let's face it, the Bush Administration is a product of Newt Gingrich's revamping of the Republican party.
Because the US is pretty much stuck with a two party system. You can go third party in local and state elections but not on the national scale. Even if you manage to elect a third party person to the House or the Senate they have to join with one of the major parties or be ignored.
Well things certainly won't change with that attitude. I guess it's this kind of reasoning that gives them their power.
It will only change by getting more third party people elected on the local and state level.
Because the US is pretty much stuck with a two party system. You can go third party in local and state elections but not on the national scale. Even if you manage to elect a third party person to the House or the Senate they have to join with one of the major parties or be ignored.
Well things certainly won't change with that attitude. I guess it's this kind of reasoning that gives them their power.
It will only change by getting more third party people elected on the local and state level.
The way third parties have always functioned in the U.S. is that they bring to light one or two pet issues and then one of the two major parties absorbs those issues and the masses are mostly satisfied. While I think the two party system has its cons, every system has its cons, it is just picking which cons you want. What other system, specifically, would you like to see in the U.S.?
What other system, specifically, would you like to see in the U.S.?
Honestly, I would much prefer a non-partisan system. I have to agree with George Washington's Farewell Address and James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 that political parties will corrupt the political system.
What other system, specifically, would you like to see in the U.S.?
Honestly, I would much prefer a non-partisan system. I have to agree with George Washington's Farewell Address and James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 that political parties will corrupt the political system.
As long as people have opposing ideas, there's no such thing as a non-partisan system. Idyllic; untenable.
As long as people have opposing ideas, there's no such thing as a non-partisan system. Idyllic; untenable.
There is a difference between factionalism based on ideals and what are essentially two private companies that are on the stage today. When you have two presidential candidates such as Ron Paul and Mitt Romney in the same "party", I don't think one can say that the current parties are really based around similar political ideals.
As long as people have opposing ideas, there's no such thing as a non-partisan system. Idyllic; untenable.
The problem is when there is a partisan system with too few parties. In the US we can't choose a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal that isn't also crazy. Certain unrelated political stances become tied together, even if they are entirely unrelated. If you are pro-war, but pro-choice, who do you vote for? There is no option available to you because those two completely unrelated political stances are attached at the hip because of a two party system.
Even worse than that, is the fact that it works both ways. The fact that there are only two parties reflects back on the populace, and people begin to associate those unrelated ideas with each other. I don't have a study to show this, but I will bet good money that as level of education decreases you will find fewer and fewer people who have opinions on issues that are not in line with one of the major parties. Of the people I have met that I consider intelligent, they all have stances on issues that ignore the psychological association that is brought about by our party system.
Satire only works when it is mixed with a nugget of truth. The statements in that video are so far from having a nugget of truth that they are not even remotely funny. Further, some of them are more in tune with liberal thought than conservative (I want the government to tell me what to think/do).
Steve, I think the bit you are talking about was the woman saying that she liked the government telling her who she could love. If you can't figure it out, that means that she was gay and appreciated the government not allowing her to marry another woman. That is a very, very Republican thought. Saying it was "liberal" just shows how skewed your view of things is and how dense and obtuse you are. That video was pretty damn accurate. I think it just makes you uncomfortable to be called out.
Speaking of being called out, I still haven't heard you say anything about why the Contract with America was so great, whether it had any lasting effects, or why you think Gingrich had anything to do with the Republicans winning majorities in '94.
Speaking of being called out, I still haven't heard you say anything about why the Contract with America was so great, whether it had any lasting effects, or why you think Gingrich had anything to do with the Republicans winning majorities in '94.
That would take too long to write. The cost-to-benefit ratio is simply not there.
Speaking of being called out, I still haven't heard you say anything about why the Contract with America was so great, whether it had any lasting effects, or why you think Gingrich had anything to do with the Republicans winning majorities in '94.
That would take too long to write. The cost-to-benefit ratio is simply not there.
If you don't speak weasel, that's Steve's way of saying he doesn't know.
Speaking of being called out, I still haven't heard you say anything about why the Contract with America was so great, whether it had any lasting effects, or why you think Gingrich had anything to do with the Republicans winning majorities in '94.
That would take too long to write. The cost-to-benefit ratio is simply not there.
If you don't speak weasel, that's Steve's way of saying he doesn't know.
The short answer is take everything you hate about him and 50% of those things are why I liked him. The long term effect of the Contract with America is that he showed that when a party sets an agenda and actively works on it they can win elections. Conversely, when they ignore their agenda and become what their supporters hate they will lose.
The long term effect of theContract with Americais that he showed that when a party sets an agenda and actively works on it they can win elections. Conversely, when they ignore their agenda and become what their supporters hate they will lose.
Oh, so agendas were unknown before the advent of the Contract with America?
The long term effect of theContract with Americais that he showed that when a party sets an agenda and actively works on it they can win elections. Conversely, when they ignore their agenda and become what their supporters hate they will lose.
The long term effect of theContract with Americais that he showed that when a party sets an agenda and actively works on it they can win elections. Conversely, when they ignore their agenda and become what their supporters hate they will lose.
So, concerted, organized party action was unknown before the advent of the Contract with America?
. . . and before the Contract with America, politicians did not know that it would help them if they did what their supporters wanted them to do?
The long term effect of theContract with Americais that he showed that when a party sets an agenda and actively works on it they can win elections. Conversely, when they ignore their agenda and become what their supporters hate they will lose.
So, concerted, organized party action was unknown before the advent of the Contract with America?
No but having a large majority of the members up for election signing a pledge to follow through on those items was. It also set the stage for state candidates running effectively national elections (for good or bad).
No but having a large majority of the members up for election signing a pledge to follow through on those items was. It also set the stage for state candidates running effectively national elections (for good or bad).
So, that never happened before in history? Parties never had organized platforms before the Contract?
That's kind of odd that it affected the elections at all since it was intriduced just six (6) weeks before the elections.
Were any of the actual Contract with America provisions passed?
Where is Gingrich today?
Tom DeLay had a part in the Contract too, didn't he? Where is he today?
Like I said, not worth the effort. Your hate of Newt Gingrich is far greater than my good feelings towards him. Anything I write will be read by you as me putting him on a pedestal, a pedestal that you will immediately take a sledgehammer to.
Like I said, not worth the effort. Your hate of Newt Gingrich is far greater than my good feelings towards him. Anything I write will be read by you as me putting him on a pedestal, a pedestal that you will immediately take a sledgehammer to.
If the person you respect can be taken down so easily, then why respect him? It is one thing to say that you like certain aspects of a person's career, and it is entirely another when you say you want to see a new incarnation of that person.
Like I said, not worth the effort. Your hate of Newt Gingrich is far greater than my good feelings towards him. Anything I write will be read by you as me putting him on a pedestal, a pedestal that you will immediately take a sledgehammer to.
If the person you respect can be taken down so easily, then why respect him? It is one thing to say that you like certain aspects of a person's career, and it is entirely another when you say you want to see a new incarnation of that person.
I want the pre-scandal Newt, not the post scandal Newt. I want what Newt represents (the return of conservative values to the Senate) not necessarily a direct copy of him.
Comments
2. Explain to me how Gingrich was responsible for the Rupublican "takeover" in 1994.
I'm not being derisive or sarcastic at all. I seriously want to hear your explanations.
Even worse than that, is the fact that it works both ways. The fact that there are only two parties reflects back on the populace, and people begin to associate those unrelated ideas with each other. I don't have a study to show this, but I will bet good money that as level of education decreases you will find fewer and fewer people who have opinions on issues that are not in line with one of the major parties. Of the people I have met that I consider intelligent, they all have stances on issues that ignore the psychological association that is brought about by our party system.
Speaking of being called out, I still haven't heard you say anything about why the Contract with America was so great, whether it had any lasting effects, or why you think Gingrich had anything to do with the Republicans winning majorities in '94.
. . . and before the Contract with America, politicians did not know that it would help them if they did what their supporters wanted them to do?
That's kind of odd that it affected the elections at all since it was intriduced just six (6) weeks before the elections.
Were any of the actual Contract with America provisions passed?
Where is Gingrich today?
Tom DeLay had a part in the Contract too, didn't he? Where is he today?