We have never really seen an example of a truly free economic system. Most of the problems that we have seen stem just as much from government intervention as they do from not enough regulation. An example is the encouraging the government did for many of the variable rate/bad credit loans.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;23783905]libertarian?
depends on whether you put greater focus on social liberty or economic liberty
i'd honestly suggest social liberty because social progress tends to pave the way for new job markets and is also overall better for society as a whole
if anything is clear in the past few decades is that given too much economic freedom the upper class will go to town and fuck shit up in favor of getting a third bentley
and the economic "control" given by the dems really isn't very extreme, it's just got taxes (big whoop) and regulation on some of the more lucrative businesses[/QUOTE]
Well what is actually "better to vote for" isn't the point. It's that I can't really vote for a politician that matches best to my political beliefs. I have to always pick the lesser of two evils.
All this talk makes me wish we had an American King instead. :saddowns:
I want monarchy.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;23767718]Partisan Democracy is a sham,
Some form of direct democracy would be the ideal.[/QUOTE]
If you call mob rule and lynchings ideal, then do mankind a favor and jump from a tall building.
Politicians never solved any problems. Technology has. A technocracy, or, better yet, a global cybernetic resource utilization and management system would be a lot better.
[QUOTE=Chekko;23774057]I'd vote on a nationalist party if i was old enough.[/QUOTE]
The ''nation'' you identify yourself with is no more than imaginary lines on a speck of dust.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;23784236]All this talk makes me wish we had an American King instead. :saddowns:[/QUOTE]
"I did not defeat King George III to become King George I" - George Washington
[QUOTE=Warhol;23770587]parties are here to stay, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
Its that kind of attitude that pisses me off for anything. Didn't the states say, "Deal with it" with the Articles of Confederation? Shut your mouth if you have nothing else to say, at least we're trying to come up with ideas.
I would say add more parties, in our system what has systemically happened is because the two major parties have hijacked it. Its liek Fox News vs. MSNBC. Poor CNN being the independent representative. I say we throw in a John Stewart type party because we do need more. Because there are too many points of view and both the democratic and republican parties have been hijacked by the far left and far right respectively.
(Metaphor.)
From my perspective, politics is merely the case of picking the lesser of many evils.
I still lol every time Scorpious says he wants a free market.
How can someone know capitalism is a failure and an evil system, yet still want it.
[editline]08:53PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;23784318]Its that kind of attitude that pisses me off for anything. Didn't the states say, "Deal with it" with the Articles of Confederation? Shut your mouth if you have nothing else to say, at least we're trying to come up with ideas.
I would say add more parties, in our system what has systemically happened is because the two major parties have hijacked it. Its liek Fox News vs. MSNBC. Poor CNN being the independent representative. I say we throw in a John Stewart type party because we do need more. Because there are too many points of view and both the democratic and republican parties have been hijacked by the far left and far right respectively.
(Metaphor.)[/QUOTE]
Political Parties are not like
It's a dug in system. That's like trying to argue 1815 northern territorial disputes with the British in 2010. Some things are done, political parties are one of them.
I concur with the thought that we need more parties instead of dissolving what we have. I despise the partisan system, but it serves a purpose. It's just as it stands we only really have two parties to vote for or embody. You may argue there's others, true. But all that gets coverage, or what's more gets people in office, are the Democrats or the Republicans.
There's too much of an ideological split. It may be that there's less a need for specificity in voting and more base morals, but that goes out the window when there's only two opposing views. Using the example given before, economic freedom/social control against economic control/social freedom. Again, retreading old ground, what of economic freedom and social freedom together, or (Quite foolishly) economic control and social control? What about moderates? There's not enough choice involved. We don't need specificity, but we need more than black or white.
Along with that, there's this godawful social split brought with the parties. It's never a strong conflict of ideologies. If there's one at all it just starts off the shit slinging. It's about "Those damn liberals" or "those fucking republicans", which eventually gives way to "YOU FUCKING COMMUNISTS, DAMN PROGRESSIVES" or "SCREW OFF, FASCIST!" Nothing is accomplished past elementary name calling.
And another issue with the parties-POLITICS. As cheesy and stereotypical it is to say, far too often do these old bastards in office campaign on a certain platform to get elected and then disregard it entirely or, even worse, do the opposite. Not to mention the problems caused by private interests and the godforsaken lobbyists. Rarely is something the result of popular or voted public position, but whatever said group wants. It's sickening.
And yes, I am fully aware I contributed absolutely no contribution and sound like a bleeding heart that complains about everything and does nothing. That's because I AM. It still doesn't change the fact that there are gaping flaws and we're too busy bickering at everyone else to fix them.
Pirate Party's where it's at. :pirate:
[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;23780947]Agreed. to hell with the 2 party state. We have 4 or 5 major parties here and we're doing alright
[editline]01:37PM[/editline]
Parties are very necessary things to have in the political process, though[/QUOTE]
Where is here?
Chances are it's somewhere with proportional representation.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23784653]I still lol every time Scorpious says he wants a free market.
How can someone know capitalism is a failure and an evil system, yet still want it.
[/QUOTE]
I still lol how that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
[QUOTE=Swilly;23784318]Its that kind of attitude that pisses me off for anything. Didn't the states say, "Deal with it" with the Articles of Confederation? Shut your mouth if you have nothing else to say, at least we're trying to come up with ideas.
I would say add more parties, in our system what has systemically happened is because the two major parties have hijacked it. Its liek Fox News vs. MSNBC. Poor CNN being the independent representative. I say we throw in a John Stewart type party because we do need more. Because there are too many points of view and both the democratic and republican parties have been hijacked by the far left and far right respectively.
(Metaphor.)[/QUOTE]
There are more than two parties but the only party that gets any votes at all is the Independent.
Also the Democrats are very very centrist and timid. Also it's Jon Stewart.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23785056]I still lol how that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.[/QUOTE]
You're complaining about an issue that was resolved 200 years ago about an issue that's not really an issue
Just to make myself look good I decided to post my notes on political parties, probably minor spelling mistakes etc, but this should help if your understanding isn't 100%
A political party is a coalition of like-minded people who seek to emplace their manifesto by attaining a political office or position of power.
Parties exist in two man types, Extremist – National Front, BNP etc.
Mainstream – Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative.
The fact that a party stands for elected office is the key difference between a party and a pressure group.
[U]Features of Political Parties:[/U]
- Parties develop policy programmes called manifestos, which they seek to implement via the pursuit of elected office.
- Parties represent a variety of opinions; however there are so called “catch all” parties (mainstream) that have very centralised views and their manifesto is generally reflective of the majority.
- Parties are generally more successful if they can represent many opinions at once.
- Parties REPRESENT the political views of the electorate and RECRUIT a political elite that is capable of representing.
- Parties seek to help maintain a stable political system and facilitate the peaceful change of power from one incumbent government to the next.
· The also play a role in the political education of the electorate and facilitate participation via party membership.
- They increase the legitimacy of the incumbent because they provide such a broad range of voting possibilities; the general election gets legitimacy from the people, which provides the government with the authority to govern.
[U]Conservatism [I]“Government has no other end but the preservation of property”[/I] (Locke)[/U]
- Relatively right wing ideology.
- Change, if needed should be gradual, rather than radical.
- Small state, the role of which should be to maintain order and national security.
- Strong belief and reliance on traditional moral values and family.
- Tough on crime, punishment is the solution.
- Support free market capitalism and privatisation.
- Eurosceptic.
- People should grow to be self-reliant, not get handouts from the state.
- Society is hierarchical; there is a better class of person.
- Lower taxes.
- Patriotic.
[U]Liberalism[/U]
v Tends not to be classified as totally right or left wing, but more accurately as a libertarian ideology.
v People are inherently rational and should be as free as possible, providing that they do not impinge on other’s freedom.
v Society should be tolerant of all beliefs and groups.
v Crime should be treated with rehabilitation and reintegration.
v Civil liberties must be ensured and observed by the state.
v Constitutional and electoral reform is key to a more democratic state.
v There are different kinds that are easier to classify:
Social Liberalism – Government looks after the liberty of all people [I](left).[/I]
Economic Liberalism – Smaller state, freer economy [I](right).[/I]
[U]Socialism[/U]
- Left-wing ideology.
- People are equal in their opportunities, regardless of background.
- Nationalisation of industry, the free market is unfair.
- Welfare state should be maintained.
- Collectivism.
- Comprehensive education.
FUCKIN' DIAGRAM:
[IMG]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5797/partyi.jpg[/IMG]
Don't know shit about UK politics? This is useless to you.
[QUOTE=Chekko;23782362]:downs:[/QUOTE]
yeah I wouldn't expect you to know how stupid you are, especially if you're not old enough to vote.
[QUOTE=Lol Steve;23784712]I concur with the thought that we need more parties instead of dissolving what we have. I despise the partisan system, but it serves a purpose. It's just as it stands we only really have two parties to vote for or embody. You may argue there's others, true. But all that gets coverage, or what's more gets people in office, are the Democrats or the Republicans.
There's too much of an ideological split. It may be that there's less a need for specificity in voting and more base morals, but that goes out the window when there's only two opposing views. Using the example given before, economic freedom/social control against economic control/social freedom. Again, retreading old ground, what of economic freedom and social freedom together, or (Quite foolishly) economic control and social control? What about moderates? There's not enough choice involved. We don't need specificity, but we need more than black or white.
Along with that, there's this godawful social split brought with the parties. It's never a strong conflict of ideologies. If there's one at all it just starts off the shit slinging. It's about "Those damn liberals" or "those fucking republicans", which eventually gives way to "YOU FUCKING COMMUNISTS, DAMN PROGRESSIVES" or "SCREW OFF, FASCIST!" Nothing is accomplished past elementary name calling.
And another issue with the parties-POLITICS. As cheesy and stereotypical it is to say, far too often do these old bastards in office campaign on a certain platform to get elected and then disregard it entirely or, even worse, do the opposite. Not to mention the problems caused by private interests and the godforsaken lobbyists. Rarely is something the result of popular or voted public position, but whatever said group wants. It's sickening.
And yes, I am fully aware I contributed absolutely no contribution and sound like a bleeding heart that complains about everything and does nothing. That's because I AM. It still doesn't change the fact that there are gaping flaws and we're too busy bickering at everyone else to fix them.[/QUOTE]
The Republican Party and Democratic party used to actually stand for something and then the extremes gained control and became the face for both parties. We get no where and the media isn't helping it any since they've replaced any credible people with political pundits who only worry about their future.
Our entire society is falling apart at the seams and its because of both parties. Not just one, both are to blame for everything.
[QUOTE=SgtSpankeyII;23786034]
FUCKIN' DIAGRAM:
[IMG]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5797/partyi.jpg[/IMG]
Don't know shit about UK politics? This is useless to you.[/QUOTE]
America is pretty much Democrats on the left side, Republicans on the right side. No compromise in between.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23788126]America is pretty much Democrats on the left side, Republicans on the right side. No compromise in between.[/QUOTE]
yep...the independents don't even register.
[QUOTE=Swilly;23788165]yep...the independents don't even register.[/QUOTE]
I registered! :smith:
I don't know about you man but I vote on the party who can give me the most electrolytes!
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23788218]I registered! :smith:[/QUOTE]
I mean on the scale....:smith:
We're either fanatic left or fanatic right to most Americans.
Dang, George Washington hit the nail on the head with his quote...
Also, If people don't have a political party, they'll just forget about the election and not vote. Also, how could this be voted in? A verrrrry small percentage of people don't belong to a party, and it's not like the government will fix it...
[QUOTE=ManningQB18;23788627]Dang, George Washington hit the nail on the head with his quote...
Also, If people don't have a political party, they'll just forget about the election and not vote. Also, how could this be voted in? A verrrrry small percentage of people don't belong to a party, and it's not like the government will fix it...[/QUOTE]
Well I figured that if they don't have a political party to pray to anymore, they would start to develop their own political understanding. Start to vote for what they really believe in, instead of red or blue.
Besides, the biggest, strongest business corporations in America is called "Republican Party" and "Democratic Party". The politicians are more job seekers than statesmen. With out parties, we go back to the high ideal of "citizen legislatures".
The best step in the right direction, I believe, is an immediate creation of term limits for all elected positions on all levels of government. That we we can rotate the old, money grubbing shit out and get actual brains into governing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23790090]Well I figured that if they don't have a political party to pray to anymore, they would start to develop their own political understanding. Start to vote for what they really believe in, instead of red or blue.[/quote]
It wouldn't work out that way. The person with the most advertising dollars would win.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23790090]The best step in the right direction, I believe, is an immediate creation of term limits for all elected positions on all levels of government. That we we can rotate the old, money grubbing shit out and get actual brains into governing.[/QUOTE]
This, I do agree with. Supreme court justices being appointed for life is completely ass backwards.
[QUOTE=that1dude24;23791520]It wouldn't work out that way. The person with the most advertising dollars would win.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it would be possible to curtail advertising with out stating your political beliefs?
[QUOTE=that1dude24;23791520]This, I do agree with. Supreme court justices being appointed for life is completely ass backwards.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, though I think out of all the officials, they would get the longest of the terms. Having SCOTUSA judges annually rotated constantly would through the courts for a big loop
My mom is a perfect example of this.
I'm just waiting for the day she says "Well, Obama is putting even more troops in Afghanistan" so i can jump all over her for giving me the whole "Do you really think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" spiel.
Part of me thinks i should preemptively make a poster that says "REMEMBER BACK WHEN YOU HATED SADDAM FOR BLOWING UP THE TWIN TOWERS WITH HIS AIRLINERS OF DOOM!?"
Ugh.
I wish my mom would turn off Fox news and just stick to reading books.
Preferably with no political affiliation.
I just remembered she has a conservative news letter downstairs, with Glemn Beck dressed "casual as fuck" with his laceless converse all-starts, sitting in front of an American flag looking like someone just shot his puppy.
The 3 of them together make my blood boil.
:edit:
[IMG]http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt311/actionhank1786/052810mag.jpg[/IMG]
What a fucking dick-bag.
[url]http://www.helium.com/items/1447233-are-political-parties-as-useful-as-american-society-would-have-us-believe[/url]
I think that sums up a lot very nicely. Granted, it's written by just another person but... I feel as though some research was put into the article.
[QUOTE=Swilly;23788276]I mean on the scale....:smith:
We're either fanatic left or fanatic right to most Americans.[/QUOTE]
There is no organized far left from I've seen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.