| thomasquinn 32989 07.09.2006 09:38 |
Now that Bush has confirmed what we already knew, we can add one more to the ever-growing list of warcrimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity there is to his name. Not only has he violated human rights once again here, he has also had his drones lie to heads of state. link link Yet another bit of 'pleasant' news: more people have now died because of anti-terrorism than because of terrorism itself. What a great world we inhabit. I wonder what the history books will tell us about these times some 50 years from now. Surely, the McCarthy-era will pale in comparison. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.09.2006 09:45 |
Let's hope the American voters will think better about whom they will elect next time. The enemy here is not so much the radical, it's the evil overlord who rallies more people to that radical course everyday due to his nazi-regime. |
| eenaweena 07.09.2006 09:49 |
he's so stupid. and evil. he brain washes some of the leaders into believing he rocks. but he is full of shit. our president got brainwashed. which really, really sucks. |
| john bodega 07.09.2006 09:56 |
link |
| The Fairy King 07.09.2006 10:13 |
[Edit] Not worth it. |
| PieterMC 07.09.2006 10:21 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Let's hope the American voters will think better about whom they will elect next time. The enemy here is not so much the radical, it's the evil overlord who rallies more people to that radical course everyday due to his nazi-regime.Don't forget that they never actually voted him in the first time. |
| john bodega 07.09.2006 10:24 |
PieterMC wrote:You *can* buy City Hall!<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Let's hope the American voters will think better about whom they will elect next time. The enemy here is not so much the radical, it's the evil overlord who rallies more people to that radical course everyday due to his nazi-regime.Don't forget that they never actually voted him in the first time. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.09.2006 10:25 |
PieterMC wrote:Some 50% of the people who went to vote (ie. 25% of the American people) did, sadly...<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Let's hope the American voters will think better about whom they will elect next time. The enemy here is not so much the radical, it's the evil overlord who rallies more people to that radical course everyday due to his nazi-regime.Don't forget that they never actually voted him in the first time. |
| deleted user 07.09.2006 10:26 |
Bush is by far the worst ever American president |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.09.2006 10:30 |
<font color=orange><b>Freddies son</b wrote: Bush is by far the worst ever American presidentNah, I think Herbert Hoover deserves that title. He is the worst since WWII though. |
| Maz 07.09.2006 10:35 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Nixon, Harding, Buchanan, and Grant were all worse than Hoover, according to leading historians.<font color=orange><b>Freddies son</b wrote: Bush is by far the worst ever American presidentNah, I think Herbert Hoover deserves that title. He is the worst since WWII though. Also, serious study of the Great Depression reveals that Hoover was not as bad as many people think. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.09.2006 10:37 |
I can see the point with Nixon, yeah. Buchanon and Grant were more insignificant than bad, weren't they? And of course, there's Warren G. Harding with the most corrupt administration ever! |
| Maz 07.09.2006 10:43 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Buchanon and Grant were more insignificant than bad, weren't they?No, they were bad. Harding had the most corrupt administration perhaps, but Grant was a close second. Corruption in his administration led to a 4 year depression which devastated the railroad industry and led to a halt in Reconstruction. One of the great questions in American history is what might have happened had Reconstruction not failed in the 1870s. (Grant was so obtuse that he wanted a third term as President because he needed a job) Though the Civil War probably would have occurred regardless of Buchanan, he did not help matters. In fact, when the states left the Union, he actually said that it was beyond his power to do anything about it. That is weak and ineffective leadership at it's worst. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.09.2006 10:49 |
Zeni wrote:I'll take your word for it. I'm not familiar with 19th century US politics in general. The Grant-part does once again show that soldiers should never get into politics. Same goes for Sharon, for instance.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Buchanon and Grant were more insignificant than bad, weren't they?No, they were bad. Harding had the most corrupt administration perhaps, but Grant was a close second. Corruption in his administration led to a 4 year depression which devastated the railroad industry and led to a halt in Reconstruction. One of the great questions in American history is what might have happened had Reconstruction not failed in the 1870s. (Grant was so obtuse that he wanted a third term as President because he needed a job) Though the Civil War probably would have occurred regardless of Buchanan, he did not help matters. In fact, when the states left the Union, he actually said that it was beyond his power to do anything about it. That is weak and ineffective leadership at it's worst. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 07.09.2006 11:03 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I think you are confusing the 2000 election with the 2004 re-election here, Thomas. Pieter is right on the first one, and most people know that....Bush didn't win the first election in 2000, the Supreme Court gave that one to him (by what means, I don't even want to get into). But, like Thomas says, he did win the 2004 election fair and square. He did what the republicans are going to try to do again with these mid-term elections in a few months....scare the hell out of the American people and making them think if we were to change leadership the whole protection system will collapse. Plus, I'm sure some of them will try the "We haven't been attacked since republicans came into office, so that means that we have been effective in stopping terror" bit, which is a false argument becaues that can't be proven either way. It's just as possible that the resources and time it took to plan something like 9-11 wiped them out for a time, and they need some time to plan more and get more resources and people. I'm sure that it took more than 5 years to plan 9-11, from start to finish. Granted, we've probably make things alittle more difficult for them, but the argument itself is unprovable.PieterMC wrote:Some 50% of the people who went to vote (ie. 25% of the American people) did, sadly...<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Let's hope the American voters will think better about whom they will elect next time. The enemy here is not so much the radical, it's the evil overlord who rallies more people to that radical course everyday due to his nazi-regime.Don't forget that they never actually voted him in the first time. The saddest thing about the 2004 election though wasn't the fact that Bush got himself re-elected....I saw that coming a mile away because most Americans are pretty guilible (or stupid) or both. The saddest thing is that if Kerry had managed to get himself elected, nothing would have changed, because he wouldn't have been able to do anything. Republicans still have control of the Congress, and they would NOT have worked with him to get anything done. He's had been a figurehead at most. Of course, the same holds true for Bush to a certain extent. Things could be much worse if he had the control of Congress that he needs to pass everything he wants to pass. True, the Republicans have the majority, but they have a slim majority, and you need 2/3 vote to pass anything of any consequence. That means some Democrats would have to vote with the Republicans, and you know that's not about to happen any time soon. So Bush's hands are kinda tied as well (although not as much as I'd like to see them tied). As far as what Historians are going to say about this Presidency, only time will tell. I'd give it about 100 years, because the Historians who are alive (or historians in training, like me) are going to be too biased to be able to view this whole thing from a distance. We'll need a new generation who wasn't alive when Bush was in office to know for certain. |
| john bodega 07.09.2006 11:40 |
Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss. |
| Lisser 07.09.2006 14:23 |
Zebonka12 wrote: linkThis was hilarious. Thanks for sharing! |
| That guy who digs energy domes 07.09.2006 14:53 |
Its about time! Hopefully gitmo can teach those bastards their lesson |
| Crezchi 07.09.2006 16:17 |
I didn't vote for Bush the 1st or 2nd time. I wonder if he still reads his "PRESIDENT FOR DUMMIES" book everytime he makes and address to the nation? lol |
| Gone. 07.09.2006 16:20 |
Crezchi wrote: I didn't vote for Bush the 1st or 2nd time. I wonder if he still reads his "PRESIDENT FOR DUMMIES" book everytime he makes and address to the nation? lollol xD |
| Joeker 07.09.2006 18:20 |
Abe Lincoln was probably the best president in USA history...George W. Bush is cool cause we can poke fun at him more than any other prez |
| Smitty 07.09.2006 18:44 |
It bothers me though how so many people who post crap about Bush around here are NOT FROM THE U.S.A. Yet complain regularly on how it's run. I do think though that the secret prisons are shady to say the least, but you don't see me posting crap about the government in the UK, or the Netherlands, or in like Mexico or that kind of crap. It'd be better to get more intellegent responses in these threads other than
Multiple posters wrote: Bush is evil...Bush is the worst American president...[Bush's] Nazi regime...So TQ...shut up for at least a little while about your grievances having to do with a country thousands of miles away from you. That goes for some of the other posters here from the UK or from other far away regions. |
| user name 07.09.2006 19:45 |
To clarify, Bush did win the first election, despite losing the popular vote. It is debatable, although debate tends to lean in Bush's favor, that should Florida have been recounted, Al Gore may have won the state (Bush's margin of victory in that state was VERY small). However, the Supreme Court declared that a recount should not proceed, and therefore it did not. Edit: That said, it is my opinion that we definitely need a President with more or less classically liberal ("Libertarian") ideals. |
| Joeker 07.09.2006 22:27 |
how can you lose the popular vote? its like an oxy moron, the one who is most popular always wins |
| The Mir@cle 08.09.2006 02:51 |
I already had problems with it, but now I can't take that person seriously anymore. And who can? Bush should take his responsibility and leave the White House! |
| willem-jan 8923 08.09.2006 03:04 |
<font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY™ wrote: It bothers me though how so many people who post crap about Bush around here are NOT FROM THE U.S.A. Yet complain regularly on how it's run. I do think though that the secret prisons are shady to say the least, but you don't see me posting crap about the government in the UK, or the Netherlands, or in like Mexico or that kind of crap. It'd be better to get more intellegent responses in these threads other thanWell, the US invaded Iraq. First it was for weapons of mass destruction. When they could find these, they brought up the dictatorship thingie by Saddam. Yet, you say that it is not reasonable to judge a country from "abroad". Then how the hell could you explain annihilating a whole country, based on the same arguments?Multiple posters wrote: Bush is evil...Bush is the worst American president...[Bush's] Nazi regime...So TQ...shut up for at least a little while about your grievances having to do with a country thousands of miles away from you. That goes for some of the other posters here from the UK or from other far away regions. |
| YourValentine 08.09.2006 03:53 |
Smitty, the USA are the only super power. They are dangerous for every other country when someone like Bush is in office. Last week German born Murat Kurnaz was sent home from Guantanamo bay prison after almost 5 years imprisonment for no reason. He was kidnapped by the Bush regime in Pakistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He was only 19 years old and had just finished his education. He was taken to Guantanamo bay and tortured there for 5 years, - he could see his American lawyer 5 times in 5 years - no charge was ever filed against him, nor did he ever see a judge - not a single piece of evidence was ever shown to justify his imprisonment - he was not allowed to see anybody apart from the 5 visits of his lawyer. - he was kept in a cage with artificial light day and night and never could talk to anybody. - he was returned after endless negotiations with the German government in an airplane with his eyes blind folded and his body chained to the floor. He needs medical care and trauma therapy, his life was ruined. The German government had to sign a paper assuring they would respect his human rights before he was sent home, what a joke! How can you say it's not our business? The most powerful country in the world disregards the most basic human rights but has the ribaldry to call other nations "rogue countries" and threatens them with war! I am a peaceful person and never raised my hand against anybody in my whole life. But I feel the anger rising in me with each new incident I hear, I feel the shame about not doing enough against this outrage and I tell you one thing: There are thousands of Murats in this world - people being bombed, killed, arrested, humiliated, tortured, - and they all have families and friends and their anger must be ten times as bad as mine and they are not peaceful. It does not need islamic propaganda to make them "fighters in a holy war" or something - it's the Bush regime that creates thousands of new terrorists each day and it's our fault when we close our eyes and do not fight against injustice when we have the chance - in our own country! |
| The Mir@cle 08.09.2006 04:07 |
I fully agree Barbara.. We shouldn't close our eyes. Still we're quite powerless. Bush is revoted, and has the power for the coming years. Btw.. I'm quite ashamed of the way my country supports Bush's regime. That might be a good reason to vote for another party with the coming elections. Maybe a little pressure from other countries might help. |
| The Fairy King 08.09.2006 05:55 |
This little CIA prison thingy is nothing compared to other stuff they are holding back. Face it, the people will never ever know what's really going on. We get mad at the terrorists and people who try to stop this demon called America (or other regimes), but are they wrong? Sure they use the wrong way to put a stop to it, but they do it for a reason. We don't know what's going on in the backrooms of world politics. There is some real injustice going on and the world needs to know what. Because if this continues, people just get pissed at minorities/eachother, while they should be looking at the leaders of the world who are deceiving us peeps with their puppets in the media. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 08.09.2006 07:14 |
I really wish that Bush would just leave, because everyone knows that he's just making the problems worse in the future. But he won't. He's too stubborn of a man to leave on his own, arrogant enough to not give a rats behind about what other countries think, and the people here who oppose him don't hold a big enough sway in the Congress to evict him from office. Like it or not, the world is stuck with him at least until 2008. But that's what makes him dangerous....he actually believes that what he's doing is right, and will not be told otherwise. Blind obidience to any cause like that is very dangerous, whether it be an ideal you come up with, or a person, or God or whatever. He won't be swayed, because he honestly believes he's right. He'll probably never know just a wrong he is (and sure as hell he'll never admit it, if he does figure it out). |
| yamaha 08.09.2006 08:55 |
Is it me, or did this board just get a little more liberal? It used to be fun to debate politics here, but this is a death trap. Talking points: -I feel safer that terror suspects, under the name of enemy combatants, are detained. -President Bush was elected on two separate occations. To put it easily, he won election in more states that matter than Gore or Kerry. I must admit though, the dems sure do have a lock on the dead vote. -The left, at least to me, seems to be more about complaining and less about proposing workable solutions. Hillary Clinton would cause a huge international incident if she were elected in 2008. I remain confident though, that Americans have the sence to relize that now is not the time for a person like her to lead the country. -Why am I even argueing about American politics with a bunch of foreigners. It say a lot to me to get a glimpse of what your news outlets are preaching. I'm done, and will now leave this thread unless I see something worth discussing. |
| Lisser 08.09.2006 09:12 |
YourValentine wrote: Smitty, the USA are the only super power. They are dangerous for every other country when someone like Bush is in office. Last week German born Murat Kurnaz was sent home from Guantanamo bay prison after almost 5 years imprisonment for no reason. He was kidnapped by the Bush regime in Pakistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He was only 19 years old and had just finished his education. He was taken to Guantanamo bay and tortured there for 5 years, - he could see his American lawyer 5 times in 5 years - no charge was ever filed against him, nor did he ever see a judge - not a single piece of evidence was ever shown to justify his imprisonment - he was not allowed to see anybody apart from the 5 visits of his lawyer. - he was kept in a cage with artificial light day and night and never could talk to anybody. - he was returned after endless negotiations with the German government in an airplane with his eyes blind folded and his body chained to the floor. He needs medical care and trauma therapy, his life was ruined. The German government had to sign a paper assuring they would respect his human rights before he was sent home, what a joke! How can you say it's not our business? The most powerful country in the world disregards the most basic human rights but has the ribaldry to call other nations "rogue countries" and threatens them with war! I am a peaceful person and never raised my hand against anybody in my whole life. But I feel the anger rising in me with each new incident I hear, I feel the shame about not doing enough against this outrage and I tell you one thing: There are thousands of Murats in this world - people being bombed, killed, arrested, humiliated, tortured, - and they all have families and friends and their anger must be ten times as bad as mine and they are not peaceful. It does not need islamic propaganda to make them "fighters in a holy war" or something - it's the Bush regime that creates thousands of new terrorists each day and it's our fault when we close our eyes and do not fight against injustice when we have the chance - in our own country!If this is true then I am outraged. What was the justification for taking him as a prisoner? Did he do anything wrong? Was he considered suspicious? Or dangerous or was he just walking down a street in Pakistan minding his own business and was snatched? I just can't understand why a 19 year old German would be taken in to custody if there wasn't any cause to hold him. Are we just taking people off the street to just hold them in cages until we see fit? If we are I want to see some concrete proof that I can use and I will write a letter every week to my congressman, the President, CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. and cause as much attention to this as one person can cause. Maybe I won't make a difference but I sure won't sit back and do nothing if infact our government is just picking people at liberty off the streets and putting them in cages for years. Our media here does not report things like this to us. I read the newspapers here and I watch the news daily. I did not know anything about this German boy. If this is true then I want to do something about it. |
| john bodega 08.09.2006 09:25 |
"It bothers me though how so many people who post crap about Bush around here are NOT FROM THE U.S.A. Yet complain regularly on how it's run. I do think though that the secret prisons are shady to say the least, but you don't see me posting crap about the government in the UK, or the Netherlands, or in like Mexico or that kind of crap." This isn't the Mexico thread. It's about Bush. Stay on topic! |
| user name 08.09.2006 09:52 |
yamaha wrote: -The left, at least to me, seems to be more about complaining and less about proposing workable solutions.This is pretty much it. I'm not saying that the right is doing the right thing, but the left definitely is not either. |
| YourValentine 08.09.2006 09:53 |
He was arrested because he had a Turkish passport and had travelled to Pakistan from Germany - that was his crime. There was more to the story and the German governmennt did not look too good during the process, either! For example, Murat lost his permit to stay in Germany because he did not routinely apply for it being imprisoned by the USA! Only after Human Right organisations protested, the German government took care of the issue. When the USA had to admit there was no charge to be filed and no reason for the arrest other than a prejudice, they tried to blackmail the Germans into accepting other innocent prisoners from Guantanamo Bay who had no country to return to. Although I understand that Germany does not want to be dragged into the illegal activities of the USA, it would have been good to take these people for humanity reasons but the Germans refused. Also, the Americans demanded that Murat should hand in his passport to the police, he should be monitored non-stop (which would be 100% illegal here under any circumstances), should report to the police once a week - measures that would require a court decision and no court in a free country would decide such measures for no reason at all. It's only one case of hundreds. We all know about Guantanamo Bay and that America acts worse than the "rogue countries" they accuse with all the self righteous hypocrisy that annoys the rest of the world - mainly the victims. Each of these cases and each victim of Abu Greibh or other prisons, victims of bombings and war will lead to angry people willing to kill any American they can find. And if it's a British or Italian or German - that won't make much of a difference for them. Actually, I am amazed that Western people are surprised about the hatred - it does not surprise me at all. |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.09.2006 10:45 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You may have noticed that many suggestions for improvements have surfaced, all from the left side of the spectrum, while conservatives worldwide spend their time scuttling these ideas, but fail to come up with anything of their own.yamaha wrote: -The left, at least to me, seems to be more about complaining and less about proposing workable solutions.This is pretty much it. I'm not saying that the right is doing the right thing, but the left definitely is not either. The only agenda-points the American conservatives put any energy in, is attracting more capital in the form of large corporations, attracting more rich citizens by lowering taxes for the rich, creating a false sense of unity by drawing attention from their own incompetence to an only partly real image of a Muslim world which aims solely to destroy the west, and finally a never-ending post-imperialist aim for gaining more power in the world. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.09.2006 12:08 |
We all knew long before that there are secret prisons, and that's just a small part of the entire pot of bullshit waiting to boil at any minute. After all, what else can we expect from government insiders who killed their own president (JFK), possibly his brother as well, and who have been secretly selling weapons to terrorists for decades. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 08.09.2006 13:26 |
It would be easy to say this board got more liberal, and to look at the surface it probably did. But remember, politians are politicans, no matter their stripe. Valid arguments can be raised against both sides (Democrats aren't coming up with new ideas, this is true. But Republicans can't get anything done they want to like social security reform...) Politicans are the most self-serving people in the world, which is sad considering they are supposed to be servants of the people. Neither side is going to come up with any solutions, because they know they don't have to. All they have to do is make promises to get themselves elected into office, then sit around making themselves richer for four years, then the other side comes in and does the same thing. Unless a viable third party candidate can get in there and do some serious damange and hold both major parties accountable for themselves, nothing will ever be accomplished. That's not likely to happen in the future though....the third parties are too fragmented. If they could unify, then maybe. And for the record, although I hate to admit it since it makes people judge me before they know me, I AM an American, and thus have a pretty good idea what I'm saying. And anybody has the right to complain about anything they want....but you also have the right not to listen to them if you don't want to. So if it bothers people that "foreigners" are posting criticisms here, just ignore it. No one is forcing you to read it. Quit complaining about it and move on. |
| Maz 08.09.2006 13:45 |
Third Parties don't work in the US, nor do they need to. In a two party system, if one political party moves too far to the right or left, then the other can claim the middle ground. The middle ground, after all, is where most American's reside. You see that now as the Republicans promote conservative issues (immigration, gay marriage, War on Terror) while Democrats sit back and go straight up the middle. If we had Third Parties in the US, then we would be talking about coalition govts, which could lead to fragmentation. That might help some groups (ie a Third Party dedicated to the environment) but its overall effectiveness is something political science people can debate (and poly sci people need something to do with their time). |
| Sherwood Forest 08.09.2006 14:19 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Yet another bit of 'pleasant' news: more people have now died because of anti-terrorism than because of terrorism itself.you cant measure lives like that |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.09.2006 14:21 |
Poly-party systems work extremely well worldwide. Besides, only the Federal Government in the US is a 2-party system. On local and state levels, plenty of independent or smaller-party candidates get elected. |
| Maz 08.09.2006 15:25 |
Municipal elections are usually open field, which means that anyone can run without political affiliation. However, watch them closely, and you'll see that most who are elected are either Republican or Democratic. As for state elections, they are usually primary driven, which means Democrats and Republicans dominate the field. Yes, independents and third party candidates are elected now and again, but it is not that common and is generally a regional issue. State officials make up the local networks for national parties. In the US, third parties gain the most ground when people perceive that the Republicans or Democrats are ignoring the common man. They usually spike in attention, then fade as the Democrats and Republicans take over their ideological turf. And, while I realize this is debatable, I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. |
| Micrówave 08.09.2006 15:48 |
SMITTY™ wrote: It bothers me though how so many people who post crap about Bush around here are NOT FROM THE U.S.A.Here Here!!!!!! Boy, you anti-Bush people are really funny... Freddies son wrote: Bush is by far the worst ever American presidentYou're 17. How would you know? ThomasQuinn wrote: I'm not familiar with 19th century US politics in general.Perhaps we could get Freddies son's take? CMU HistoryGirl wrote: That means some Democrats would have to vote with the Republicans, and you know that's not about to happen any time soon.Hey Democrats! You sent out Joe Lieberman to run for president. And now you're pissy that Bush is still President? Before calling Bush stupid, maybe you should do a little introspection.... Democrats: "Nah, let's just throw Hillary out there in 2008." Republicans: "Gee, thanks for 4 more years!." Crezchi wrote: I didn't vote for Bush the 1st or 2nd time.No, you were too worried about your IP address. |
| user name 08.09.2006 16:38 |
Speaking of third party candidates, isn't it ironic that while classically liberal ideas are lauded and taught to our children at such young and impressionable ages, in history classes and such, the Libertarian Party is nonetheless pretty much stuck in the mud, with little to no hope of attaining any sort of prevalence? The answer may be blatantly obvious, but I haven't stumbled upon it yet. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 08.09.2006 19:08 |
Zeni wrote: Third Parties don't work in the US, nor do they need to. In a two party system, if one political party moves too far to the right or left, then the other can claim the middle ground. The middle ground, after all, is where most American's reside. You see that now as the Republicans promote conservative issues (immigration, gay marriage, War on Terror) while Democrats sit back and go straight up the middle. If we had Third Parties in the US, then we would be talking about coalition govts, which could lead to fragmentation. That might help some groups (ie a Third Party dedicated to the environment) but its overall effectiveness is something political science people can debate (and poly sci people need something to do with their time).You've raised a valid point, and I'm not going to disagree with you on this one. In an idea society with an ideal political system, that's how this would work. However, this isn't an ideal world. Both of the main parties have figured out that neither of them need do anything, because the only criticism they have coming at them is from the other side, which is going to criticize anyway. It's like having two kids fighting with eachother. Let them go on and on until they both turn blue, but if both are stubborn enough the fight will never end, because they've both figured out that in a strange way, they need eachother to get what they want. That's why neither major party will help the 3rd parties out at all. Defending criticism on one front is fine, but get it coming from two, and you suddenly have to start changing your strategies. To go back to the kids fighting analogy, when do kids tend to have the fight end? When a third party (adult or another kid) comes in and either sugguests a compromise or ends it in some other way. This is why we've had years of next to nothing accomplished in politics, and the unpopular things that have been accomplished haven't been fixed, for all of the screaming about them. There isn't a real threat to the parties in power to make them change anything, and since there are only two powers, compromises must be made to make anything work at all. Like you said, most Americans tend to fall in the middle, which means there is a balance of both sides in government, but when both sides refuse to work with eachother, you have a stalemate, and nothing gets done. Government can do wonderfull things....The weeks after 9-11 proved just how much a government can accomplish (for good or evil) when both sides are actually united to work with eachother. But a stalemate helps no one, and that's where the two party system is right now. ONE third party would break up the stalemate, and stuff might actually start to get done. However, only ONE third party is needed, any more than that, and you are right. Chaos will ensue and nothing will get done because of bickering and confusion. |
| Sherwood Forest 08.09.2006 19:12 |
Mircrowave! wrote:yeah i have to agree with both of themSMITTY™ wrote: It bothers me though how so many people who post crap about Bush around here are NOT FROM THE U.S.A.Here Here!!!!!! Boy, you anti-Bush people are really funny... |
| Sherwood Forest 08.09.2006 19:14 |
<font color=orange><b>Freddies son</b> Bush is by far the worst ever American president |
| Maz 09.09.2006 00:05 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: To go back to the kids fighting analogy, when do kids tend to have the fight end? When a third party (adult or another kid) comes in and either sugguests a compromise or ends it in some other way.Political parties change stances all of the time, largely due to internal pressure. Your third party analogy assumes that political parties are static organizations. This change can be good (Democrats in the 1960s and Civil Rights) or it can be bad (Republicans in the 1970s and the Silent Majority), but it does happen. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 09.09.2006 06:02 |
Zeni wrote:Another excellent point. If change would be forthcoming in both parties, or even just in one, things would progress. However, I don't see change happening anytime soon. Or, rather, I do see change happening, but it's a bad change.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: To go back to the kids fighting analogy, when do kids tend to have the fight end? When a third party (adult or another kid) comes in and either sugguests a compromise or ends it in some other way.Political parties change stances all of the time, largely due to internal pressure. Your third party analogy assumes that political parties are static organizations. This change can be good (Democrats in the 1960s and Civil Rights) or it can be bad (Republicans in the 1970s and the Silent Majority), but it does happen. Who knows how far things will progress in this direction before we reach some kind of breaking point? |