Lowbrow Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 When the founding fathers were organizing our government they never intended for us to polarize into a two party system but we did right off the bat. At first it was the federalists and the anti-federalists but by 1860 it was the republicans and the democrats. There are many pros and cons to this state of our government. Some think that it lends stability or removes the radical fringe (ie the failure of the german government from keeping the Nazi fringe from coming to power because the majority parties couldnt come to a consensus). But many people in America are tired of having no other choice and view it as picking the lesser of two evils. Third parties have almost taken the white house in the past.Do you think we could ever shake these current two parties? Or would you even want to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 i'm registered as a democrat but i'm indifferent to both parties. i think the demicans and the republicrats have become out of synch with most of the country. except the ones rich enough to buy them out.so, yes, the two-party system sucks big time. i'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative and would love to see a party that shared my views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted February 14, 2005 Author Share Posted February 14, 2005 Well, obviously I am dead set against the 2 party system. One thing that I think would put us large strides closer to a truely representative government would be to eliminate the electoral college. It is an archaic system set in place to try to aid the uninformed country bumkin that has no idea who the candidates are. This system should have been reviewed once presidential debates were televised or sooner.There is plenty of info on the net about this, here is one sight:http://www.therestofus.org/electoral_college/FAQs.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1fd Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 One thing that I think would put us large strides closer to a truely representative government would be to eliminate the electoral college. It is an archaic system set in place to try to aid the uninformed country bumkin that has no idea who the candidates are.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think we still have no idea who the candidates are. I watched the debates, and heard what they said, but I still had no idea who the really were....just what flavor of sterilized crap they could spew out, and how well the could spew it. Either the electoral college should be comprised of people who really know who the candidates are, and can choose the best one, or the candidates should be required to speak the truth, with no doublespeak....under penalty of death for an interesting twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted February 15, 2005 Author Share Posted February 15, 2005 yeah how about locking all their kids in a room and making them hash it out.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debmartin Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 sad to say it's all about the $$$ whether you're talking about electing a mayor, gov or president. political machines are fueled by money and not by the energy of quality candidates. the government should belong to the people and not to elite special interest groups who expect favors and appointments in return for their support. i think it'd be great if candidates were not allowed to spend any money on campaigns - let'm use public access and the internet."yeah how about locking all their kids in a room and making them hash it out...."(quote, lowbrow)great idea...without all their idiot parents around they'd probably get to talking about the mtv awards and do just that.debmartin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 There have been other parties for years but none have been able to get the support they need financially. I know a lot of young Republicans like myself are leaning more toward Libertarians because on many levels we are less conservative with many social issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I registered Independent. I'm mostly conservative due to my christian upbringing & basic beliefs, but I also have very liberal views on other things that I think should be unquestionably someone's right (abortion, smoking marijauna, prositiution, gambling, etc..). I know many will disagree with me over those issues, but the fact remains, if we were truely free - those things would be legal - everywhere, in all the 50 states.Political parties prey on party members by exploiting key issues to get votes. It's all propaganda & manipulation it seems these days. I agree that the 2 party (unofficial) system sucks. But the even more important question is, what would we replace it with?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Just out of curiosity, if you're pro abortion, marijuana, prostitution, and gambling, what exactly are the "basic beliefs" that came out of your christian upbringing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 You misread. I said that I'm conservative due to my christian upbringing and basic beliefs.So I'm not sure if your question still stands as what you meant to ask, but I'll answer it anyway: The basic beliefs I have from my christian upbringing are: 1. I believe in God. 2. I believe the bible to be a collection of true documents (I have to point out here that I also acknowledge that these documents were written in a time of mysticism, superstition, and faith in a higherpower with no recognition or even knowledge of science. Also, I think the bible is incomplete, and that there are many more chapters that were written and were either: never compiled, lost, or destroyed.).That's about it. As for my reasoning behind marijuana, abortion, prostitution, and gambling: These are all victimless crimes. No one forces you to do any of these things. These are all things you choose to do. Sure some will argue their points that there are victims (mostly collateral type victims like family members & friends), but the fact remains: the only victims in these crimes are the people who commit them. Why is it we have laws that punish us for doing something to ourselves?Just my thoughts. I'm not running for office, nor am I trying to convince anyone of what I think. I'm just answering the questions. Please don't email me trying to convince me to change my mind, call Jesus collect, or to drink the kool-aide.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ah, cool. I think I just misread it. I was intrigued -- usually when I hear people talking about conservativism and christianity in the same sentence, they usually mean they're socially conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 That's because most practicing Christians are anti-abortion, anti-gambling, and anti-fornication. I don't know too many that are for any of that. Of course a little blackjack in Vegas never stopped me from going to church. And then there was that whole hooker thing..... kidding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debmartin Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "That's about it. As for my reasoning behind marijuana, abortion, prostitution, and gambling: These are all victimless crimes. No one forces you to do any of these things. These are all things you choose to do. Sure some will argue their points that there are victims (mostly collateral type victims like family members & friends), but the fact remains: the only victims in these crimes are the people who commit them. Why is it we have laws that punish us for doing something to ourselves?""Just my thoughts. I'm not running for office, nor am I trying to convince anyone of what I think. I'm just answering the questions. Please don't email me trying to convince me to change my mind, call Jesus collect, or to drink the kool-aide."(quote, tw2ntyse7en)27 i applaud your honesty, even if we disagree on a few points. and i am the #1 fan of tolerance, diversity and respect for an individual's point of view. i would never try and convince anyone to change their mind, i've found jesus does not accept collect calls and i despise kool-aide because of the unhealthy added dyes.that said, i sincerely hope you are open to some dialog, because often times we can see a situation in a different light when reflected through the eyes of another. i'm not touching abortion because it's a religious issue, but i would like to share my views with you on gambling, drugs and prostitution as i feel these issues are of grave consequence to a civilized culture. in earlier times, these "ills of society" were commonplace and in order to elevate the standard of living the pro's and con's were weighed in by the people, who decided they should be if not phased out at least toned down. often it proved the wrong course of action, an example being prohibition, as drinking simply went underground and the gangsters that took control were deemed an even larger detriment.prostitution and gambling, imho harm humanity by attracting those with the least willpower and lowest threshold for self-improvement, and the result is a gradual weakening of a person's resiliency. this leads to certain lifestyle choices where the end result is one who feels fortunate to survive and never learns to thrive. on the surface these may seem like victimless crimes but consider what goes hand in hand with prostitution and gambling: crime! just like the recently raided "gamerooms" which are more frequently being robbed - more police calls translate into more probability for gunfire. prostitution more often than not goes hand in hand with drugs - this takes a toll on society when the county emergency rooms are clogged up with hookers who o'd trying to get high enough to forget what their lives are all about.pot smoking is more complicated for me, because my biggest concern with it would be the whole "gateway drug" thing because i grew up in the 70's and found this to be true. once i had kids of my own my views changed as perhaps yours will, but maybe not. recreational use might be ok, but when someone is depressed and using to dull the pain (life avoidance) it's an issue and often contributes to suicide. i'm sure you see your fair share of what drugs can do to the human body in your line of work, and again, the toll on society can be measured by the increased burden on our police, fire and other emergency services, as well as our public hospitals which are running out of resources.i'm sure you are a good person or you would be in another line of work altogether. it has also occurred to me that in order to avoid the burn-out associated with hardcore public service, a certain level of detachment is needed. aside from my concern with the impact of these "victimless" crimes on society at large, i too am a live and let live kind of person. generally i find people must set their own standards and only make improvements when THEY feel they have not measured up to them. debmartin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Do you think we could ever shake these current two parties? Or would you even want to?I don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 I don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 the founding fathers didnt create a 2 party systemOh, but they did! They didn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ^ you...you...liberal you. i will just say that our government should not be in the business in legislating morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Laws against gambling and prostitution go back to the time around Prohibition, right? They aren't really illegal because of the morality of the actions. Deb provided a great example of the populist argument because I can understand the deleterious effects these things have on people. People in desperate economic times will often turn to these things to make their situations even worse.Now I think there is no excuse for cracking down on marijuana since it's a natural material with many great benefits that we could put to use. I keep thinking of how John Ashcroft sent the DEA stormtroopers after all those cancer patients for smoking their hippy weed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 I know it sounds utterly stupid, and is by all definition an oxymoron - but I prefer the term: "Liberal Conservative".How twisted is that? not twisted at all..i'm socially very liberal but on the otherhand, i'm quite conservative when it comes to the military, gun control and fiscal matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Actually, gambling is not illegal in Texas. If I want to hold a high-stakes poker game in my home, that would be totally legal. If I want to make up a $10,000 a square football pot, that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ^ you...you...liberal you. i will just say that our government should not be in the business in legislating morality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No offense, but this doesn't make any sense. If you actually believe that, then you believe killing another human being should be.....what.....handled by the people privately? Backyard vigilantes, lynch mob kind of thing? I'm curious because most of our country's basic legislature is based on SOME kind of morality. What it sounds more like is you think the government should not be in the business of legislating morality that you don't agree with. If that's the case, I can respect that. I find myself in a similar conundrum with my own party based on that argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 No offense, but this doesn't make any sense. If you actually believe that, then you believe killing another human being should be.....what.....handled by the people privately? Backyard vigilantes, lynch mob kind of thing? I'm curious because most of our country's basic legislature is based on SOME kind of morality.What it sounds more like is you think the government should not be in the business of legislating morality that you don't agree with. If that's the case, I can respect that. I find myself in a similar conundrum with my own party based on that argument. no...murder is a little different and common sense would say that any civilized society should prohibit it. i was talking more along the lines of outlawing prostitution and gambling as well as "protect" marriages and interfere with reproductive rights. I'm the exact opposite - I'm socially very conservative, but I'm very liberal in the pocket on abortion, drugs, gambling, & prostitution. Crazy huh? Maybe we need to start our own party? wouldn't being liberal on abortion, drugs, gambling, & prostitution make you more or less socially liberal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 Because of my upbringing (both parents military & then civil service) and then my own career (the exact same), no. That's why I said pocket liberal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess I'm a pocket conservative then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 no...murder is a little different and common sense would say that any civilized society should prohibit it. i was talking more along the lines of outlawing prostitution and gambling as well as "protect" marriages and interfere with reproductive rights.wouldn't being liberal on abortion, drugs, gambling, & prostitution make you more or less socially liberal? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think then, that we agree on my original statement: What it sounds more like is you think the government should not be in the business of legislating morality that you don't agree with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...and that you didn't mean government shouldn't make laws on things like murder (my apologies for being so extreme), identity theft, speeding, etc... Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ...and that you didn't mean government shouldn't make laws on things like murder (my apologies for being so extreme), identity theft, speeding, etc...Gotcha. things like murder, identity theft and so on harm other people where as prostitution, gambling and drugs do not. speeding is also dangerous to others hense why it is not allowed...that has nothing to do with moral enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.