billvon 3,114 #26 July 13, 2004 >What do they say about gun control? No idea. Their web page is http://www.theamericanparty.org/ but I did not see anything on gun control at first glance. Perhaps they do not consider it a pressing issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 July 13, 2004 Quote>What do they say about gun control? No idea. Their web page is http://www.theamericanparty.org/ but I did not see anything on gun control at first glance. Perhaps they do not consider it a pressing issue. Not very bright then, are they?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #28 July 13, 2004 Quote>What do they say about gun control? No idea. Their web page is http://www.theamericanparty.org/ but I did not see anything on gun control at first glance. Perhaps they do not consider it a pressing issue. Here it is: Gun Control The right of citizens to keep and bear arms, whether for sporting purposes, personal defense, or as a deterrent to tyranny, is guaranteed by the Second Article of the Bill of Rights and is not to be infringed. The purpose of the government is not the control of law-abiding gun owners but the control of criminals. We favor heavy mandatory state penalties for violent crimes. We oppose all laws existing and proposed that would infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #29 July 13, 2004 QuoteDon't you mean the "plurality" (greatest percentage) and not "majority" (percentage over 50)? Errr, actually we're both wrong. It was two times that the house chose the pres because there was no majority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 July 13, 2004 QuoteFrom my simplistic point of view - It shits on states like New Mexico. NM has less than 2 million people. New York City has 5 times that. As a candidate - where will you spend your time and money and whose issues are you going to listen to? A popular vote that way seems to me to be handing the reins of the country to California and New York - no thanks. I don't think that would be the case. Simply because each state still has house reps, as well as each state having equal power in the senate. If the pres alienated those states, he would also alienate the congressmen from those areas. Wouldn't be smart politically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 July 13, 2004 QuoteBut honestly, I don't see the justification for a change in the Presidential. 50 million votes is still far from a majority of the american public, so why does it matter that Clinton got only 43% of those who bothered to show up? Because they are the only ones that matter. If people don't care enough to vote, then they are not a consideration. But the fact that we keep electing a president that more than half of the people who DO care, DIDN'T want, seems wrong to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #32 July 13, 2004 QuoteThe Libertarians are different from both parties. No other party can say that. Yes. We are equal opportunity offenders. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #33 July 13, 2004 Hey Kev, if I ever get up to Philly I wanna share a cheesesteak with ya. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 July 13, 2004 QuoteI just don't see the connection between Libs and Repubs or Dems. Neither of the big two are for shrinking government; they each want it to grow in their chosen direction. The Libs are the only party I know of that actually wants to reduce the role of government and give choice (liberty) back to the people. Have you seen the platform for the skydiving, Lib pres candidate? I agree that gov't needs to be reduced, but look at his NPAT. Greatly Decrease Funding b) Intelligence operations Greatly Decrease Funding c) Military hardware Greatly Decrease Funding i) Troop and equipment readiness X e) Eliminate all federal programs designed to reduce unemployment. No b) Should the U.S. use economic pressure to encourage North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program? No c) Should the U.S. use military force to destroy the North Korean nuclear weapons program? No d) Should the U.S. remove the North Korean government from power? No e) Should the U.S. increase financial support to Afghanistan? No f) Should the U.S. increase military support to Afghanistan? Some of the ideas of the Lib party I agree completely with. Some of them you can't get anywhere else. But some of their positions are pretty radical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #35 July 13, 2004 QuoteHey Kev, if I ever get up to Philly I wanna share a cheesesteak with ya. Dude...get your own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #36 July 13, 2004 QuoteDude...get your own. Hey... my treat. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #37 July 13, 2004 Quote-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -repeal of all zoning laws -withdrawal from the UN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEAR F-in' HEAR!! Why would you want to repeal the zoning laws? Have you ever been to Houston? No zoning, and this place is pretty F*d up. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #38 July 13, 2004 One thing I've asked of a few friends, and never gotten a good answer... What is it about the US system that forces a two party system? What discourages other parties from growing? _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #39 July 13, 2004 money. Perot, for example, had a lot of it, and did quite a bit for the independent folks... however, his waffling over whether or not he was actually going to run cost them a lot of credibility. with enough cash and a somewhat moderate platform, any party can be a viable alternative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 July 13, 2004 It's pretty simple. The republicans and democrats are automatically on the ballots and automatically get public financial support. No one else is, they all have to fight for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #41 July 13, 2004 There is nothing about the system it self that forces it to be two party... I think it is the inherent laziness of the American people... it is the dumbing down of democratic process so the people who will not take the time to learn about issues that affect them can participate... the Democrates and Republicans have just done the best jobs of wooing people... and since those parties are so big, people who would otherwise go to a third party don't, because they want their vote to "count" for at least a vote against the "worst evil". The people have given the power to the two big parties. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #42 July 13, 2004 "The people have given the power to the two big parties." We have a multi party system here, it has its good points and bad points. Good side is that our elections can be real fun, The Monster Raving Looney Party for example fronted by Screaming Lord Sutch http://www.omrlp.com/ Aside from entertainment we also have a forum to raise some issues the big boys might note be so interested in, eg environmental concerns, age support etc, and quite often even one member elected on these grounds can create change. Ah, but there is an inherent down side, that is the nightmare of a hung parliament. It is quite feasible that the party that wins the election can be outnumbered by the other parties, who each do not have as many seats as the winning party, but if they combine their votes on things like changing legislation, can stop changes being passed. Basically legislative and constitutional change can be stalled, making the government pretty ineffective. Under this system we also see a lot of tactical voting where you may not necessarily vote for the party you want to win, rather you vote to keep certain individuals out of power. And that is just plain crazy to me. I don't really know which is better, all I have experience of is the way we do things here, and its certainly not perfect. Our elections have a lot less mud slinging in them though, they are in fact pretty boring to watch as an outsider, unlike yours which provide new entertainment on an almost daily basis.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #43 July 13, 2004 QuoteThere is nothing about the system it self that forces it to be two party... I think it is the inherent laziness of the American people... it is the dumbing down of democratic process so the people who will not take the time to learn about issues that affect them can participate... BINGO! at least imo Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #44 July 13, 2004 QuoteOne thing I've asked of a few friends, and never gotten a good answer... What is it about the US system that forces a two party system? What discourages other parties from growing? _Am The reason is because we are better at finding common ground than the rest of the world. We are more evolved and understand that everything can't simply be about me me me. See if you care about nothing other than the environment and you want all the laws to center around protecting it and screwing everybody else then you can vote for the Green party. But since most people don't subscribe to that its not going to get very far. Way back is 1891 the populist party was established which favored farmers. It was great for farmers and back then since there were more farmers, they stood a chance in hell of getting elected. Obviously they didn't last for long. The reality is that having more and more political parties serves only to make a country politically unstable. Inorder to have a more stable nation one must compromise inorder to have the best possible choice {not the perfect one, that doesn't exist}. In our (U.S.) system if a third party candidate starts pushing a specific issue enough and people like it, it will end up on the agenda of the Dem or the Republican ticket. There are things I don't like about the Republican agendas. I support animal rights and I can't stand how Puritanical American television is compared to the rest of the world. But to me this is not nearly as important as keeping a wacko liberal like Kerry from endangering our national security by bowing to the U.N., rolling back tax cuts to put his Socialist touch in our economy through class envy, rolling back the partial birth abortion ban, infringing on the gun rights of law biding citizens, letting liberal judges do as they wish making a mockery of the insitution of marriage despite of the fact that even in the most liberal state of Taxachussets most people still oppose gay marriage, I can go on but I need to get back to work. Still I think the point of how sick the thought of a Kerry administration makes me is quite clear.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #45 July 13, 2004 Did I mention that my chief complaint was that I hadn't gotten a good answer? "Because we're better then everyone else" is NOT a good answer. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #46 July 13, 2004 QuoteDid I mention that my chief complaint was that I hadn't gotten a good answer? "Because we're better then everyone else" is NOT a good answer. _Am I am sorry but that is the truth. The country that most people of the world wish they could come to is the U.S.. Why? because we are better. The European Union was established to try to mirror the U.S. The Euro was set at the starting value of 1 Euro per $. Why to both because we are better. I am sorry if it offends you but I have travel around the world and have respect for other cultures but if the question is placed. Flat out there is no question about it, we are better and I am sure that one specific reason for that is that we have a two party system which helps maintain a more stable socieity.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #47 July 13, 2004 Wait -- I thought it was the Spaniards who were better than anyone else. Man, I'm so confused! Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #48 July 13, 2004 um... I think most people in Europe are quite happy with their home country. It's very arrogant of you to assume otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #49 July 13, 2004 QuoteWait -- I thought it was the Spaniards who were better than anyone else. Man, I'm so confused! Wendy W. that was 100 years ago when all my ancestors were there.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #50 July 13, 2004 I'm confused. Before you said there was a two party system because Americans were smarter than everyone else. Now you say that America is better than everywhere else because of the two party system. Suffice it to say that I continue on my quest for "a good answer". I think PhillyKev came closest. I'm gonna have to look that up... _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
