PDA

View Full Version : Tell me what you think of this?



DaJudge
March 6th, 2008, 01:24 PM
Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican. Start being a good American!

Steve
March 6th, 2008, 01:27 PM
Nice sentiment, but it would have to start with Congress and party leaders, which ain't gonna happen.

ThePagan
March 6th, 2008, 01:29 PM
Yep.. what Steve said - but at least it would be a start.

- Shawn

Tom N
March 6th, 2008, 01:29 PM
Works for me. Gonna have to serve somebody?

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 01:30 PM
The party system needs to go away. Why is it OK for our nation to segrigate its government when it is not legal anywhere else?

Loki
March 6th, 2008, 01:32 PM
By being a good Republican, I feel I am being a good American. :D

LONEWOLF
March 6th, 2008, 01:40 PM
Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican. Start being a good American!

Sounds like a good slogan for a bumper sticker

Squale
March 6th, 2008, 01:40 PM
Compromise is the first step in building a better nation. What better way than sending a message to our elected officials that this is what our country needs.

Waifer2112
March 6th, 2008, 01:41 PM
By being a good Republican, I feel I am being a good American. :D

I just had to highlight that little part. :flipoff2:

Oscar
March 6th, 2008, 01:42 PM
Screw compromise lets get our pitch forks and torches and march on the capitol that will tell them we are serious.

Dagimp
March 6th, 2008, 01:47 PM
I agree, two party system is a complete failure and breeding ground for crooked politicians.

Dave McDonald
March 6th, 2008, 01:49 PM
Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican. Start being a good American!

It is a great slogan, and a wonderful sentiment. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that someone like The Copper Cowboy and I have a difference of opinions on what being a 'good American' is... :)

Big Dave
March 6th, 2008, 01:51 PM
This whole two party system will eventually lead to the downfall of this once great nation IMO.

Loki
March 6th, 2008, 01:51 PM
I just had to highlight that little part. :flipoff2:

Feel better now? :shrug:

:flipoff2:

ZooMad75
March 6th, 2008, 01:54 PM
The party system needs to go away. Why is it OK for our nation to segrigate its government when it is not legal anywhere else?


We can get rid of the party system, but people are naturally going to lean in one direction or another. Some, like now will stay in the middle. So we won't call them Democrats or Republicans, it will just be liberals, moderates and the conservitives. People will naturally gravitate to those with similar outlooks to the political process. Just because you toss out the party system doesn't mean you'll see a die hard conservative like Rush hanging out and joining up with Bill Clinton.

It's worth it to have the check/balance to the system. The problem is as of lately there hasn't been a whole lot of comprimise from either party to move to the point of taking care of issues together. Instead issues get stuck in the quicksand of debate and get made to be a political issue more than anything else. What's interesting is in the democratic controlled congress they haven't got squat done.

ZappBranigan
March 6th, 2008, 02:02 PM
Nobody is forced to join any party. A party is just a group of people working together towards a common goal. If you want to skip the party system and run/vote as an independent, you can.

For those who think we need to "scrap" the two party system, how would you accomplish that little feat? Parties are voluntary associations. The first amendment guarantees the right of free associations. If I want to gather with other like-minded people and work toward a common goal, why is that a bad thing? And who are you to say I shouldn't be able to do that? :confused:

ZappBranigan
March 6th, 2008, 02:07 PM
This whole two party system will eventually lead to the downfall of this once great nation IMO.

Oh, I don't know, we've managed OK for the last 217 years or so...Federalists/Antifederalists, Whigs/Tories, Democrats/Republicans....Actually the 2 party system is a good thing because it forces politicians into the center politically. Without it we'd be like European countries where they have 15 parties and the only way to win elections is with a coalition government that spends more time bickering among itself than getting anything done. And before you say "oh, that's the way it is here", no, it's not. Not even close. :tisk:

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 02:08 PM
I don't have any idea how to get rid of the party system but, I believe it needs to go. It is a marketing technique, just like Nascar has Ford or Chevy or Pontiac or Toyota fans rooting for cars. People have no idea what these politicians stand for, believe the pandering crap they lay out, and vote for them because they are sheep and follow the marketing ploy.

The party system prevents free thinking from elected officials. We are not going to elect indepenents because we are sheep and being indepenent is not "cool" or "right for the country" or whatever other tag you might be able to think of. I don't want someone that votes based on a party line. I want someone that thinks for themself, consideres the people and current state of affairs, and then votes.

Big Dave
March 6th, 2008, 02:11 PM
I'm just agreeing with you entirely too much today Chad.

Oscar
March 6th, 2008, 02:13 PM
I don't have any idea how to get rid of the party system but, I believe it needs to go. It is a marketing technique, just like Nascar has Ford or Chevy or Pontiac or Toyota fans rooting for cars. People have no idea what these politicians stand for, believe the pandering crap they lay out, and vote for them because they are sheep and follow the marketing ploy.

The party system prevents free thinking from elected officials. We are not going to elect indepenents because we are sheep and being indepenent is not "cool" or "right for the country" or whatever other tag you might be able to think of. I don't want someone that votes based on a party line. I want someone that thinks for themself, consideres the people and current state of affairs, and then votes.
I told you folks what to do but nobody listens pitch forks and torches baby.

Steve
March 6th, 2008, 02:18 PM
I don't have any idea how to get rid of the party system but, I believe it needs to go. It is a marketing technique, just like Nascar has Ford or Chevy or Pontiac or Toyota fans rooting for cars. People have no idea what these politicians stand for, believe the pandering crap they lay out, and vote for them because they are sheep and follow the marketing ploy.

The party system prevents free thinking from elected officials. We are not going to elect indepenents because we are sheep and being indepenent is not "cool" or "right for the country" or whatever other tag you might be able to think of. I don't want someone that votes based on a party line. I want someone that thinks for themself, consideres the people and current state of affairs, and then votes.

The parts I hi-lited have nothing to do with one, two, or several parties and everything to do with way too many idiots in the general population. Getting rid of the "two party system" will have no effect on those problems at all.

The problem isn't the two party system, it's us and the idiots we elect and keep re- electing. :(

ZappBranigan
March 6th, 2008, 02:21 PM
I don't have any idea how to get rid of the party system but, I believe it needs to go. It is a marketing technique, just like Nascar has Ford or Chevy or Pontiac or Toyota fans rooting for cars. People have no idea what these politicians stand for, believe the pandering crap they lay out, and vote for them because they are sheep and follow the marketing ploy.

The party system prevents free thinking from elected officials. We are not going to elect indepenents because we are sheep and being indepenent is not "cool" or "right for the country" or whatever other tag you might be able to think of. I don't want someone that votes based on a party line. I want someone that thinks for themself, consideres the people and current state of affairs, and then votes.

:confused:

Last time I checked we voted for individuals, not parties. Now, in other parts of the world it is just the opposite. You go to the poll and you vote for the Green party, or the Social Democrats, or the Trade Unionists, and you have no say in who represents you, only which party. The party decides who represents you.

Here, we can choose the individual. You can vote for Joe Shmoe because he's an honorable man. Or you can vote for him because he's in the same party. Or you can vote for him because his shiny red nose has mesmerized you. Or you can vote for him because his opponent is a filthy commie child molesting slumlord CEO Pagan fundamentalist tinfoil hat wearing nutjob. Or you can vote against Joe Shmoe for any of the above reasons or all of them or none of them. Or you can sit home and drink beer and watch "Teletubbies" until your brain turns to mush.

My point is that just because we have political parties doesn't mean that we have to vote on party lines. You can vote whatever way you want to.

And political parties themselves are nothing but voluntary groups of people working toward a common goal, as I said above.

So Let's say I think that santiation commisioner Ray Patterson is doing a lousy job, and I'm going to run against him, you could run yourself, or you could say "hey, Martin, that's a great idea and I think you'd be a great sanitation commissioner." and instead of running for sanitation commissioner yourself, you could give me money so I could buy signs that say "vote for Martin for sanitation commissioner."

Now, take the above and multiply it by millions. That's what a political party is. Nobody is being forced or compelled to do anything, it's all folks working together by choice. Why is that a bad thing?

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 02:21 PM
The parts I hi-lited have nothing to do with one, two, or several parties and everything to do with way too many idiots in the general population. Getting rid of the "two party system" will have no effect on those problems at all.

I have to disagree with you. It is brand recognition. People want to be able to have a lable that they fall under or belong to. It is just like being a Ford or Chevy fan. How many uneducated people, with little to no knowledge of cars, will argue with you until they are blue in the face that their brand is better. Take away those brands and you are forcing them to think for themselves. :shrug:

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 02:27 PM
:confused:

Last time I checked we voted for individuals, not parties. Now, in other parts of the world it is just the opposite. You go to the poll and you vote for the Green party, or the Social Democrats, or the Trade Unionists, and you have no say in who represents you, only which party. The party decides who represents you.

Here, we can choose the individual. You can vote for Joe Shmoe because he's an honorable man. Or you can vote for him because he's in the same party. Or you can vote for him because his shiny red nose has mesmerized you. Or you can vote for him because his opponent is a filthy commie child molesting slumlord CEO Pagan fundamentalist tinfoil hat wearing nutjob. Or you can vote against Joe Shmoe for any of the above reasons or all of them or none of them. Or you can sit home and drink beer and watch "Teletubbies" until your brain turns to mush.

My point is that just because we have political parties doesn't mean that we have to vote on party lines. You can vote whatever way you want to.

If I said it, I never meant to use the word "have" in the context you put it. As I have pointed out, the general populas are sheep and I believe the party system to be a marketing ploy that they fall for. I'm fully aware that "I" can vote for who ever I want. Now, once that person is in office, "I" can pretty much bet on him voting on issues based on "His" party line, not thinking outside the box based on what his voters want.

These guys are career politicians and are almost always going to vote party line or they will no longer be in the good graces of their party, meaning they won't get funds to run for a re-election campaign.


And political parties themselves are nothing but voluntary groups of people working toward a common goal, as I said above. So if I decide that santiation commisioner Ray Patterson is doing a lousy job, and I'm going to run against him, you could run yourself, or you could say "hey, Martin, that's a great idea and I think you'd be a great sanitation commissioner." and instead of running for sanitation commissioner yourself, you could give me money so I could buy signs that say "vote for Martin for sanitation commissioner."

Now, take the above and multiply it by millions. That's what a political party is. Nobody is being forced or compelled to do anything, it's all folks working together by choice. Why is that a bad thing?

Because it is being used to lead sheep. The other problems with politics is the campaigning. Why should it be OK for these people to tell the public what they want to hear, even when they know there is no way in hell they will try to create programs, lower taxes, pull troops out, or anything else that doesn't fit cutely into their parties agenda?

Steve
March 6th, 2008, 02:30 PM
I have to disagree with you. It is brand recognition. People want to be able to have a lable that they fall under or belong to. It is just like being a Ford or Chevy fan. How many uneducated people, with little to know knowledge of cars, will argue with you until they are blue in the face that their brand is better.

Is that Ford or Chevrolet's fault or the fault of uneducated idiots? (Nowhere is this more true than NASCAR, where many fans root for "Fords," "Chevy's," "Dodges," or "Toyotas" even though the cars are identical.) :stirpot:


Take away those brands and you are forcing them to think for themselves. :shrug:

Wishful thinking. Sheeple don't think for themselves. Take away one thing and they'll find something else to lean on. I don't for one minute believe that taking away the D or R associated with a candidate will make millions of people suddenly research and think for themselves. It certainly won't change their views on the issues.

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 02:32 PM
Wishful thinking. Sheeple don't think for themselves. Take away one thing and they'll find something else to lean on. I don't for one minute believe that taking away the D or R associated with a candidate will make millions of people suddenly research and think for themselves. It certainly won't change their views on the issues.

I'm not asking them to change their views on the issues. I'm asking them to have to do more research on who to vote for than looking for a D or R next to a name. FORCE THEM TO THINK

Steve
March 6th, 2008, 02:33 PM
I'm reminded of a saying about leading a horse to water... :silly:

...which, BTW, I can say is true based on riding horses during my elk hunting trips.

ZappBranigan
March 6th, 2008, 02:57 PM
I'm not asking them to change their views on the issues. I'm asking them to have to do more research on who to vote for than looking for a D or R next to a name. FORCE THEM TO THINK

How does eliminating political parties "force them to think?" And how do you eliminate voluntary associations?

ZappBranigan
March 6th, 2008, 03:00 PM
If I said it, I never meant to use the word "have" in the context you put it. As I have pointed out, the general populas are sheep and I believe the party system to be a marketing ploy that they fall for. I'm fully aware that "I" can vote for who ever I want. Now, once that person is in office, "I" can pretty much bet on him voting on issues based on "His" party line, not thinking outside the box based on what his voters want.


Because it is being used to lead sheep.

Ah, now I see it. You think most people are idiots ("sheep" in your terminology.)

Well, if that's true, why give them the vote at all? Wouldn't some sort of benevolant dictatorship work best?

Scratch an "idealist" and find a totalitarian. Every time. :rolleyes:

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 03:02 PM
How does eliminating political parties "force them to think?" And how do you eliminate voluntary associations?

If there is nothing to associate, how do they decide who to vote for?

As I have already stated, I have no idea how to eliminate it. What we currently have are two groups of people that strong arm the country because they are both the best organized and the wealthiest. I don't believe that is "by the people, for the people", I believe it is a career of lothing.

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 03:04 PM
Ah, now I see it. You think most people are idiots ("sheep" in your terminology.)

Well, if that's true, why give them the vote at all? Wouldn't some sort of benevolant dictatorship work best?

Scratch an "idealist" and find a totalitarian. Every time. :rolleyes:


yeah, that's what I said isn't it? Never mind, I had no intention of changing your mind and was only trying to back up my point but, instead you have chosen to put words in my mouth to twist my point to a way that you see it. :shrug:

ZappBranigan
March 6th, 2008, 03:11 PM
yeah, that's what I said isn't it? Never mind, I had no intention of changing your mind and was only trying to back up my point but, instead you have chosen to put words in my mouth to twist my point to a way that you see it. :shrug:

You said people were "sheep" who voted for candidates because they "believe the pandering crap they [the parties] lay out."

Those are your words. I'm not twisting them, I'm quoting them.

You don't seem to have much confidence in the intelligence of American voters, evidenced by the above.

Or am I missing something?

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 03:15 PM
You said people were "sheep" who voted for candidates because they "believe the pandering crap they [the parties] lay out."

Those are your words. I'm not twisting them, I'm quoting them.

You don't seem to have much confidence in the intelligence of American voters, evidenced by the above.

Or am I missing something?


I never called them idiots nor did I say scratch the idealist and find a totalitarian. By addressing them as sheep and saying we need to force them to think, I am saying they are ignorant, which is to say they are without knowledge, not without intelligence. I believe that a large majority of the american voting public falls prey to the marketing schemes that are only accomplished by the wealthy, which is one of the two parties due to their organization and combining of wealth. I cannot afford to campaign against these people and I cannot change the government at a level such as this because I do not have that kind of money or backing. :shrug:

LONEWOLF
March 6th, 2008, 03:18 PM
Not that I am trying to get into this but I do know of alot of people that vote party lines regardless. No matter what they think. Having no party affiliation would cause you to vote for a specific person do to his beliefs not his party. I see camps point. Don't you think the Kennedy's or Clinton's or the Bushes's vote strictly party line? Thats where the problem lies. They do not vote for the best person for the job. If they did and it was the other parties candidate they would probably get their card yanked.

Steve
March 6th, 2008, 03:23 PM
I never called them idiots...

I did. :D I'll say it again; many voters in this country are idiots. Not because of how they vote, but for why they vote that way.


Not that I am trying to get into this but I do know of alot of people that vote party lines regardless.

1. See above. ;)

2. How do you get rid of political parties, make them illegal? Sorry, that's unconstitutional.

3. If you get rid of the Dems and Reps, how do you prevent people from associating with others who think like them and calling themselves some other names, make it illegal? Sorry, that's unconstitutional.

LONEWOLF
March 6th, 2008, 03:31 PM
Politicians vote party line, I guess that makes them all idiots also. I understand your point, I know you can't get rid of them all I am saying is as Camp is civilians and politicians alike would be more apt to vote for the right person "IF" party lines didn't exist. They then would vote for the person not the party. It is only a statement

Camp
March 6th, 2008, 03:34 PM
Politicians vote party line, I guess that makes them all idiots also. I understand your point, I know you can't get rid of them all I am saying is as Camp is civilians and politicians alike would be more apt to vote for the right person "IF" party lines didn't exist. They then would vote for the person not the party. It is only a statement

Thanks, I thought I was the only one that could see that in the message I was writing. :beer:

ZappBranigan
March 6th, 2008, 03:36 PM
I think there's a huge misunderstanding here of what a party is and what a party is not.

First of all, let's get real here: Most people don't spend a lot of time thinking about politics. They have jobs and careers, school, family, community activities, hobbies, entertainment, etc. They have a lot on their plate.

They do not have time to dive into the minutiae of government. Our government is an incredibly complex construction, composed of multiple departments and each of those departments has thousands and thousands of pages of rules and regulations that govern its actions. It is simply physically impossible for anybody to know a lot about what is happening in government, and even if it were possible, it would consume all of your free time if you tried.

So most people just don't bother. They say "hey, I'll find a group of people that think pretty much the way I do and I'll associate with them. They'll hire people who will study these government programs and policies and then they'll recommend policies and programs that are in line with our way of thinking." Makes sense, doesn't it? Like "many hands makes for light work." Since one person can't study all this stuff, why not have a bunch of like-minded people come up with ideas together and then put forward those ideas, and even run candidates to push for those ideas? Doesn't that make more sense than expecting everyone in the US to understand every obscure bit about their governmment, which is an impossible task anyway?

So what do you call that group of like-minded people who get together to study policies and make plans for the future and run candidates?

You call it a political party.

And if you don't like the existing political parties, join a 3rd party or start your own. All this railing against "parties" is silly. "Parties" don't do anything, people do. The party is simply a way of harnessing the collective energy of a whole bunch of people instead of letting 300 million people piss it away and accomplish nothing.

LONEWOLF
March 6th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Never mind Zapp, you miss the point. We know all of this.:beer:

ZappBranigan
March 7th, 2008, 09:13 AM
Never mind Zapp, you miss the point. We know all of this.:beer:

Oh, I got the point. I just disagreed with the point. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you were saying.

You guys keep saying that the dumb voters out there are voting for party instead of person, and you're assuming that if the party just went away, somehow people would become enlightened and concerned citizens and diligently research each candidate. That's BS. If there were no parties, people would substitute something else for a party when it came time for them to make their decision about who to vote for. They'd vote for the guy who is the same race/religion/ethnicity they are, or they'd vote for the one with the best hair, or they'd vote for this one because they heard the other one was a child molester or kicked his dog or whatever. You simply can't "force" people to become more concerned or inquisitive voters. It's antithetical to human nature.

Parties give people a nice "shortcut" way of evaluating politicians they know very little about. If you took the party away, people would still find some other shortcut because most people don't care about politics.

Camp
March 7th, 2008, 09:20 AM
Oh, I got the point. I just disagreed with the point. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you were saying.


If you got the point, then why did you continue to paint the picture like we don't understand what is going on? All we did is disagree too but, you seem to be aiming at the point that if we disagree, then we have some fundemental misunderstanding of the system. :shrug:


I think there's a huge misunderstanding here of what a party is and what a party is not.


Just like you tried to put words in my mouth in an earlier post, that I pointed out I never said. Do you have some issue with people of different opinions?

ZappBranigan
March 7th, 2008, 09:35 AM
Do you have some issue with people of different opinions?

Nope. I love arguing. Can't you tell? :flipoff2:

All I'm saying is that eliminating parties won't change human nature. It's human nature that's the issue here, not parties. If the parties disappeared tomorrow something else would take their place.

As for politicians voting along party lines, that's just cooperation, and getting things done. It's how politics works. I agree to vote for your bill if you agree to vote for mine, etc. As the software geeks say, that's not a bug, it's a feature.

Jeep-in-dna
March 7th, 2008, 10:28 AM
I'm gonna have to agree with Zapp here. Even if you get rid of the parties, the so called sheep will find another way to vote without doing research on the candidate. Just for example, I was talking with a woman I work with the other day and she said, "don't you think it's about time we have a woman for president." A little further into the conversation I found out she has no idea what Hillary really stands for, she is just going to vote for he because she is a woman.

Camp
March 7th, 2008, 10:36 AM
My arguement against parties goes much deaper than how people vote, I just didn't want to take this topic in a different direction than it was going but, that is why my comments where made about organization and combining wealth.

I don't disagree that people would find another crutch but, it wouldn't be the same crutch for all of them, as it mostly is now.

RebelRescuer
March 7th, 2008, 11:01 AM
How about.....

"Stop being a moron and just be a good person"??

That kind of sums it all up, and includes everyone, everywhere. :D

Funrover
March 7th, 2008, 12:59 PM
How about.....

"Stop being a moron and just be a good person"??

That kind of sums it all up, and includes everyone, everywhere. :D

I like that one also!!

Sound_Man
March 7th, 2008, 01:13 PM
I have nothing to add to this thread other than I agree with the original post and this pic makes me chuckle..



http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o206/discgolfguru/obamasmackdownzv8.jpg

Gags
March 7th, 2008, 01:24 PM
materialism and bitch idols...We seemingly only care about ourselves not about the Nation and building the best place to live in the World. Don't give money to support underprivleged kids by taking them out of the negative environment and putting them into boarding schools to get ahead...Why? Because why should we support people who obviously can't support themselves...Then they go to prison and we pay for them anyway...No vision outside of what's in front of our faces. We should invest in people of our future.

Funrover
March 7th, 2008, 01:30 PM
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o206/discgolfguru/obamasmackdownzv8.jpg

:laughing: :laughing: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Ford Prefect
March 7th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican. Start being a good American!



As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what Bush tried to do.

Yes, I know, for all of you Dems out there, he is NOT PERFECT< HE IS HUMAN


SO WHAT I really think that he tried really hard to be bi-partisan, and was shot down hard and fast for it, by both parties. SO with out the least Dem help he was forced to be a partisan because the republicans did not like his willingness to be nice to the Dems.

Cheers

RebelRescuer
March 7th, 2008, 05:47 PM
materialism and bitch idols...We seemingly only care about ourselves not about the Nation and building the best place to live in the World. Don't give money to support underprivleged kids by taking them out of the negative environment and putting them into boarding schools to get ahead...Why? Because why should we support people who obviously can't support themselves...Then they go to prison and we pay for them anyway...No vision outside of what's in front of our faces. We should invest in people of our future.

Or better yet, lets just starting zapping more criminals!! I'm tired of people who screw up, tired of whiners, tired of so much PC bullcrap warm fuzzy poop.

Underpriveleged doesn't have to mean criminal.

Spay/neuter morons, and zap the criminals. Wanna vote for me for President? :D