|
|
Post by old3arrows on Apr 29, 2010 3:36:04 GMT -5
Why have we allowed ourselves, a nation of free thinking people, with very diverse backgrounds and ideals, to settle for just two parties, Democrat and Republican? I am so disillusioned with both parties that I no longer care which party you are in you are either a crook, or blabbering idiot, and both of you love to spend our hard earned tax dollars like water! It's time to nix this two party system and turn this country around!
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Apr 29, 2010 6:29:13 GMT -5
Term limits are the answer, but good luck with that idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Apr 29, 2010 9:08:28 GMT -5
huxbux, you are right. Years ago serving your country didn't come with lavish saleries and pensions and perks. Many Congressmen have two or more houses in different states. The only way we are going to put an end to these people serving theirselves instead of serving the country is term limits. It looks like this could be on the ballot for popular vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradley300 on Apr 29, 2010 18:59:05 GMT -5
because everyone has been scared into not voting for a 3rd party. libs are warned "dont vote for the green party, it will split our votes and we will all be screwed! and conservitives are warned "dont vote for a libertarian, they will steal some of our votes and we will all be screwed!
in the end, i would rather keep voting libertarian. i dont like 99% of republicans and i dont like any democrats. the best thing for my politcal affiliation is to have a far left president, so there is a far right correction to libertarianism. and its already happening. vote for who you WANT, voting the lesser of two evils is the only true wasted vote.
FYI How many people ran for president this last time? bet you didnt know the answer is 7 did you? obama, mccain, barr(libertarian), mckinney(green), baldwin(constitution),a socialist and a communist, tho i cant remeber their names
|
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Apr 29, 2010 20:54:47 GMT -5
I'll give you eight good reasons to stick with a two party system: Two terms of Bill Clinton.
Ross Perot's splitting the vote in 1992 gave us slick willie. He won his second term, but would not have been there had Perot not given him his first term. Unless the Democratic party is greatly weakened, a strong conservative 3rd party candidate will split the conservative vote and hand any close election to the Democrats. Given their liberal slant, is that what we want?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Apr 29, 2010 21:03:50 GMT -5
I'll give you eight good reasons to stick with a two party system: Two terms of Bill Clinton. Ross Perot's splitting the vote in 1992 gave us slick willie. He won his second term, but would not have been there had Perot not given him his first term. Unless the Democratic party is greatly weakened, a strong conservative 3rd party candidate will split the conservative vote and hand any close election to the Democrats. Given their liberal slant, is that what we want? This country will not survive 4 more years of democrats and I am not sure it will survive this 4! |
|
|
|
Post by jabba on Apr 30, 2010 7:08:14 GMT -5
The thing is... we gave the Republicans the WHOLE DEAL once already. The white house, the house, AND the senate... and what did we get? More Liberal BS. Leave the GOP en'masse. We are not your fathers libertarians. lpin.org/I am the vice chairman of the LP of Johnson County. We have public meet ups on the last Thursday of every month. (Last night BTW) if anyone is interested... we get together at a mexican restaurant for a couple hours and talk politics. You're welcome to join us. Jabba |
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Apr 30, 2010 7:42:29 GMT -5
the sheeple are unable to think for themselves and vote for anyone other than "their party's candidate", regardless of how well qualified(or NOT) the man/woman may be. Thats why we basically have a two party system  |
|
|
|
Post by bradley300 on Apr 30, 2010 7:50:05 GMT -5
I'll give you eight good reasons to stick with a two party system: Two terms of Bill Clinton. Ross Perot's splitting the vote in 1992 gave us slick willie. one good reason to vote for who you want: the reason ross perot lost was no one thought a 3rd party could win. if all the people that wanted to vote for him but didnt, would have, he would have won |
|
|
|
Post by bradley300 on Apr 30, 2010 7:56:07 GMT -5
lets have a few more liberal presidents in a row, at the rate this one is going the house of cards ( federal reserve, massive spending deficits, welfare/warfare, healthcare, pork, nanny state....) will fall in on its self and be exposed as the fraud it all is. hopefully we will learn our lesson and it will be gone for good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 30, 2010 8:25:24 GMT -5
I'll give you eight good reasons to stick with a two party system: Two terms of Bill Clinton. Ross Perot's splitting the vote in 1992 gave us slick willie. He won his second term, but would not have been there had Perot not given him his first term. Unless the Democratic party is greatly weakened, a strong conservative 3rd party candidate will split the conservative vote and hand any close election to the Democrats. Given their liberal slant, is that what we want? That is happening in Florida now as Christ is going independent.. |
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Apr 30, 2010 9:07:30 GMT -5
lets have a few more liberal presidents in a row, at the rate this one is going the house of cards ( federal reserve, massive spending deficits, welfare/warfare, healthcare, pork, nanny state....) will fall in on its self and be exposed as the fraud it all is. hopefully we will learn our lesson and it will be gone for good. I agree with you. When this President gets done, we will no longer look like the America we once knew. Look at this article and specifically look the paragraph comparing the Debt numbers of Bush and Obama. A big part of Bushes debt was due to the two wars, which both parties were behind. I don't think this country will be resilent enough to survive Obama and the Democrat spending. news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3491615 |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 30, 2010 9:17:16 GMT -5
I have heard people say time and again that the Bush deficit did not include the war in Iraq .... that he somehow kept that spending "off the books".
Any truth to that?
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 30, 2010 9:25:40 GMT -5
I'll give you eight good reasons to stick with a two party system: Two terms of Bill Clinton. Ross Perot's splitting the vote in 1992 gave us slick willie. He won his second term, but would not have been there had Perot not given him his first term. Unless the Democratic party is greatly weakened, a strong conservative 3rd party candidate will split the conservative vote and hand any close election to the Democrats. Given their liberal slant, is that what we want? That is happening in Florida now as Christ is going independent.. No kidding. You are 22 points behind in your parties primary ..... honorable choice would be to accept and move on. Nope. He decides to jump ship and run as an independent and effectively hand votes to the Democrat candidate by taking votes away from the Republican candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by crazybuck on Apr 30, 2010 9:29:58 GMT -5
I have heard people say time and again that the Bush deficit did not include the war in Iraq .... that he somehow kept that spending "off the books". Any truth to that? I think it may have been kept off the books as far as budget deficit, but not the National Debt. At least this is what the Democrats say. The numbers for the war are out there, but probably were exluded when figuring the Budget. The National Debt is comprehensive and includes all debt an this is what is specified. |
|
|
|
Post by jabba on Apr 30, 2010 12:08:56 GMT -5
I think we should make the government only spend as much as they collected LAST year. PERIOD.
If we have a war... we can have war taxes.
Jabba
|
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Apr 30, 2010 12:11:27 GMT -5
I'll give you eight good reasons to stick with a two party system: Two terms of Bill Clinton. Ross Perot's splitting the vote in 1992 gave us slick willie. one good reason to vote for who you want: the reason ross perot lost was no one thought a 3rd party could win. if all the people that wanted to vote for him but didnt, would have, he would have won I think if the fool hadn't of dropped out and turned around and got back in he might have won. That really hurt him. |
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on May 1, 2010 21:30:46 GMT -5
In view of what the two dominant parties have done when they controlled the country unfettered I'm inclined to think that having more diversity in the political arena might not be such a bad idea since it would prevent one party from doing what the Dimmocraps are doing now. One party should never have the level of power that they do now, it can only lead to trouble. Having a third, fourth, or even a fifth viable party would spread the power over a greater range of representatives, which would automatically limit the damage that any one party could create. Our system of governance was originally intended to operate in a deliberate manner with incremental change, not at the breakneck speed that it does lately.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on May 2, 2010 19:49:55 GMT -5
More pollitical parties won't change how business is done in Washington too much money and influence pulling the strings and moving the mouths of the elected officals.
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on May 2, 2010 21:40:08 GMT -5
In view of what the two dominant parties have done when they controlled the country unfettered I'm inclined to think that having more diversity in the political arena might not be such a bad idea since it would prevent one party from doing what the Dimmocraps are doing now. One party should never have the level of power that they do now, it can only lead to trouble. Having a third, fourth, or even a fifth viable party would spread the power over a greater range of representatives, which would automatically limit the damage that any one party could create. Our system of governance was originally intended to operate in a deliberate manner with incremental change, not at the breakneck speed that it does lately. A very perceptive observation |
|
