|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 11/10/2007 : 00:48:03 [Permalink]
|
 |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 01:44:07 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, we know Bush is a moron Gorgo. Doubt you'll find many here who think highly of him.
So what was your point there? Just wondering.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 04:35:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah, we know Bush is a moron Gorgo. Doubt you'll find many here who think highly of him.
So what was your point there? Just wondering.
|
He's not a moron. He's not a Rhodes scholar, but he's not a moron. I liked the cartoon. I suppose if there has to be a point, it's that a lot of people think that illustrates the state of politics, the state of the government. I think it illustrates a lot of thinking in this country.
But, people who don't even believe in Jesus think WE are fighting evil with these wars that all the wars that Bush and his predecessors have waged. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 05:05:18 [Permalink]
|
| Is this the way you see Bush, Dude? Is he a moron with an imaginary friend? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 07:03:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Well, we used to have several viable political parties. This 2 party thing, where an independent or small party has zero chance at a win most times, is fairly recent. Probably stems from the polarizing effect of the cold war.
|
It's been much longer than you think. Here's what wiki has to say:
How and why it occurs
Often general elections have rules that allow any number of candidates names to be placed on a final ballot as long as those candidates meet some minimum requirements, often based on signatures of support gathered. This type of general election promotes coalition building outside of the election process. These coalitions or political factions have, over time, become formalized associations called political parties with rules and procedures for selecting the candidate most likely to win in order to put forward the strongest candidate for the General Election. In such a system the two most well organized and unified parties will ultimately have recurring success. Since there can only be two successful parties, then the two parties often become more like coalitions of factions that would have otherwise been their own discrete parties in other electoral systems. These unified parties are held together despite their differences because their common political beliefs outweigh their differences and because of the threat of vote splitting.
Vote splitting can affect the outcome of an election when a plurality and not majority is required to win. In this scenario, two candidates which may represent a majority political viewpoint both receive votes that would have otherwise gone to the other candidate and thus "throwing" the election to a candidate that may have received far less than majority support. A Two-round system with a non partisan primary reduces concerns over vote splitting, because the top two candidates' names from the primary will be printed on the final ballot. In this scenario, the voter still has an opportunity for tactical voting to select the better candidate in the final election.
Two party systems by their nature allow third parties to occasionally supplant one of the two major parties. For example, the Labour Party in 20th century United Kingdom or Labour Party of New Zealand or arguably the Republican Party in the 19th century United States, but only at the ultimate expense of a former major party (the Liberal Party and the Whigs, respectively). The overall system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude - see Duverger's law.
In countries that use proportional representation (PR), especially where the whole country forms a single constituency (like Israel), the electoral rules discourage a two-party system; the number of votes received for a party relates directly and proportionally to the number of representative seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of proportional representation would make a two party system less likely.
[edit] How it began in the U.S.
America's first President George Washington, did not belong to a political party. This made him America's only independent (no party) president. Most of America's founding fathers were opposed to political parties, and wanted none of them in the U.S.
America's first political party was the Federalist Party founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1792. The Federalists favored a strong central government ruled by an wealthy educated elite, a national bank, strong military, treaty with Britain, and fewer rights for states and most citizens. Federalists controlled the government until 1801. George Washington supported many Federalist policies. America's second President John Adams was a member of the Federalist Party.
America's second political party was the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 in order to oppose the policies of the Federalists. This is when the two party system began in the U.S. Jefferson was reluctant to create a party because he was opposed to political parties in general, and their power struggles over the government, but he felt that he had to protect the rights of citizens. The Democratic-Republican Party's policies were often opposite to Federalist policies. The party opposed the treaty with Britain, defended the Constitution, denounced the national bank, and promoted citizen's and states' rights. It became the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 until the 1820s, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern-day Democratic Party.
Therefore, the two party system in the U.S. occurred to prevent one party from gaining too much power, by creating a second party with opposite policies. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
Here's a more in-depth history of the US two-party system. Seems we've been having the same damn argument for 230 odd years...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/216473/a_history_of_the_twoparty_system.html
| If you bend an ear to a conversation about American politics one of the most common complaints that you will hear is a distrust of bipartisan politics. The founding fathers never called for the existence of political parties and were in fact dismayed when they began to arise from differences among the first politicians. American bipartisan politics, however, is a natural phenomenon that arises from the size and disparity of the American electorate and the democratic nature of the federal government. |
I'm not willing to just roll over and say, yep, it's naturally the way politics ought to be. That's BS. It's also a function of how our electoral system works.
Federalists versus Anti-federalists - The earliest political strife arose over the question of strong the central government of the United States was to be.
...
The Federalist Party was essentially composed of nationalists. Politicians like Hamilton favored a strong federal government, administering a united group of colonies with a dynamic economy based on international trade.
...
Politicians from the south formed the chief opposition to the Federalist Party. Traditionally most of the former Anti-Federalists became the backbone of a new political entity-the Democratic-Republican party. The Democratic-Republican Party is the oldest continuous political entity in the United States and is the modern day Democratic Party, although its original adherents called themselves Republicans. The chief leaders of Republican opposition to the Federalist agenda were Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, James Madison and George Clinton. The Republicans, who were primarily based in the South, distrusted the Federalists, whom they rightly believed were dedicated to serving the interests of the merchant class. |
And so it began. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 07:05:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah, we know Bush is a moron Gorgo. Doubt you'll find many here who think highly of him.
So what was your point there? Just wondering.
|
He's not a moron. He's not a Rhodes scholar, but he's not a moron. I liked the cartoon. I suppose if there has to be a point, it's that a lot of people think that illustrates the state of politics, the state of the government. I think it illustrates a lot of thinking in this country.
But, people who don't even believe in Jesus think WE are fighting evil with these wars that all the wars that Bush and his predecessors have waged.
|
Hi-Jack.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 07:29:31 [Permalink]
|
Hi-Jack.
|
Really? That's the state of U.S. politics. There is right now, and four years ago, the idea that we just can't let the evil morons run the country. Now we see that Bush has made "mistakes" and that we have to correct those "mistakes" by electing someone better, like Clinton or Obama, or Edwards. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 10:31:39 [Permalink]
|
I don't think Bush is a moron, but he certainly demonstrates a mentality very near the top of thr bell curve. I think that Bush, like his illustrious predecessor, Reagan, is but a pliant tool for much more powerful interests. The neocon cabal, backed by enormous corporate money, has called the shots in this country for quite some time now.
Cheney is the point man for the political manipulation of the power and economy of the US that we have seen in the last seven years. He has truly been the president. Bush was selected after positioning by his old man, because he could do the Texas, good ol' boy populist bit well, in a 21st century redux of RR'c oratorical and acting skills.
Cheney is one of the Illuminati (please, I use that in a satirical and metaphorical sense) and has become the closest to a dictator that this country has suffered since its inception. His power has been hampered slightly since the '06 elections, But I think he is going to unleash a lot of hell before the probable changes in '08. He needs the Iranian oil, but he needs the Arab oil ultimately. And destruction of Iran is mandatory, as was control of the Iraq vacuum, which he created with the Iraq war.
Cheney's goal, representative of most of the really large , rich, and powerful corporate interests in the US, is to truly control, by any means necessary, all of the oil in the middle east. Saudi Arabia is central to this. Abdullah is playing a very delicate game between supporting terrorists (to maintain political instability, and keep US forces busy), drain our resources, and generally confound what he well knows is Cheney's intent; and appearing to be our "ally" to the American public, as he is strongly beholden to American interests in his own country.
Although one can argue pretty convincingly that the Democratic party is just as corrupt as the Republican (and these are the only two political parties that it makes any sense to talk about pragmatically) it still is true that if we have any chance at all to get out of this debilitating war and begin to turn things around, one has to vote to oust the Republican control of everything.
If we get a 2/3 Democratic majority in Congress, and a Democrat for president, we have a chance of recovery. I fully expect at least 75% of the corrupt corporate control of Congress will remain under the Democrats. It is ingrained in the system by now! But 75% is a hell of a lot better than 95%. And I am enough of a cockeyed optimist to hope that once we can get a toehold in the Exit door of politics, eventually we can kick much of the self-serving, greedy, predatory bastards out, regardless of their party affiliation!
I do know that things will only get worse with more Republicans voted into office! They might get better with Democrats! And every office that does not go to a Democrat, will most assuredly go to a Republican, you can take that to their Bank! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 10:35:07 [Permalink]
|
| GREAT Cartoon, Gorgo! I put it in my Strong Political File! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 12:00:09 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, I do think he is a moron. An abjectly stupid man who can appeal directly to the average mentality of the target voting block of the neocons. He can memorize a handful of pithy slogans and talking points, deliver the requisite 6 second sound byte for fauxnews, and then sign his name to whatever Cheney tells him to sign. They don't even make it a secret that the last person Bush "consults" with before "deciding" something is Cheney, in a closed door private session, no one else allwed in.
Chaloobi:
The dominanace of a two party system is what I was referring to. During the first half of the 1800s the political parties were often in flux, we had a handful of presidents from the Whig party after the federalists became defunct, then there was the split of the democratic-republicans, and with Lincoln the start of the republican party.
Every president since Lincoln has been either a republican or democrat, yes. So maybe not so recent a thing, my mistake! |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 19:25:48 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
I do think that you and I agree wholeheartedly on one thing anyway, Cheney! I think he is the most malevolently evil human being since Hitler or Stalin, whose reigns of terror I remember well! Cheney may well end up being responsible for the deaths of more people than even Stalin - who may be the current world champion mass murderer of all time! He should not only be impeached, he should be....I better shut up, the Patriarch Act is still the law of the land! |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 20:23:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Chaloobi:
The dominanace of a two party system is what I was referring to. During the first half of the 1800s the political parties were often in flux, we had a handful of presidents from the Whig party after the federalists became defunct, then there was the split of the democratic-republicans, and with Lincoln the start of the republican party.
Every president since Lincoln has been either a republican or democrat, yes. So maybe not so recent a thing, my mistake!
|
But there were only two parties at a time. Yeah, one died or morphed and another took it's place. Two though. Like now. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 21:02:00 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| I do think that you and I agree wholeheartedly on one thing anyway, Cheney! I think he is the most malevolently evil human being since Hitler or Stalin, whose reigns of terror I remember well! Cheney may well end up being responsible for the deaths of more people than even Stalin - who may be the current world champion mass murderer of all time! He should not only be impeached, he should be....I better shut up, the Patriarch Act is still the law of the land! |
In some black moments I imagine something even more sinister, that Cheney actually represents the interests of an even darker force than himself, the US shareholder. Corporate greed would not be so rampant if the corporate leaders were not held to rigid standards of "due dilligence" when it comes to being profitable. And that stems from the pressure of the shareholders who demand profit and dividends paid. If you could pick up a corporation and crack it open like an egg, all you will find inside is people.
There is also, as you say, the voracious appetite of the US for oil. Cheney sits at the intersection of all this power and clearly has influence. I don't think it is wrong to worry about him. I also agree with Kucinich that there is ample evidence to impeach him, but only if the jury is an impartial one. The insanely partisan politics and powerbrokering of the senate almost guarantee Cheney would never be found guilty if impeached. Takes 2/3.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 04:11:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude.....
I do think that you and I agree wholeheartedly on one thing anyway, Cheney! I think he is the most malevolently evil human being since Hitler or Stalin, whose reigns of terror I remember well! Cheney may well end up being responsible for the deaths of more people than even Stalin - who may be the current world champion mass murderer of all time! He should not only be impeached, he should be....I better shut up, the Patriarch Act is still the law of the land!
|
Are you factoring in Kissinger? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 04:28:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Gorgo, I do think he is a moron. An abjectly stupid man who can appeal directly to the average mentality of the target voting block of the neocons. He can memorize a handful of pithy slogans and talking points, deliver the requisite 6 second sound byte for fauxnews, and then sign his name to whatever Cheney tells him to sign. They don't even make it a secret that the last person Bush "consults" with before "deciding" something is Cheney, in a closed door private session, no one else allwed in.
|
He may be stupid, I don't know. I tend to think he's a con man. Point is, it doesn't matter, as you said, he isn't running things, and Cheney can only do so much. The think tanks, the media, the lobby groups, they're the ones feeding the information to the people who run things.
And the people who run things are only arguing about how to run things. They're not disagreeing that it was a great idea to attack Iraq, for instance. Clinton attacked Iraq, Bush I attacked Iraq. Democrats are fine with murdering and impoverishing Iraqis, they're just arguing about how to go about it.
They'll end up trying, at least, to tear Iraq apart, much as Clinton helped tear Yugoslavia apart, in an attempt to impoverish its people. There is no real important difference between the two parties. See the Scheer-Nader debate for more information on that. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The state of US politics
