[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 182

General Woundwort · #**1811** October 1st, 2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
hey i am over 30

Check my sig - so am I.

My comment was on the boomer/hippie battlecry of the 60's.

Personal anecdote - back in April I was riding the DC Metro back from a meeting downtown. It was after one of the Last protests against the Iraq war, and some of the attendees were also riding back to VA. There were about six in my car, in a group - all "well seasoned in years", and were wearing their old 60's protest buttons and as much of their old clothing that still fit. They looked rather ridiculous. After they got off, I could contain myself no longer, and asked the guy sitting next to me -

"So, I wonder what their motto is now - don't trust anyone under 50?"

tesco samoa · #**1812** October 1st, 2003, 02:43 PM

"Hope I die after I get Old.
People try to ...."

Heres another antidote for you.

A few years ago i was working with a gentleman who in his late 20 discovered communisium. This is a well paid engineer. We used to get in debates all day about the ideologies of the differenet systems. (I used to really piss him off by saying the nazi's were the biggest socialists around ) But anyways. We also had 3 people working with us who were from the old USSR one was russian, the other two Ukraine ( all 3 of them served in the navy on the subs). Well one day this guy walked up to the russian and told him how good he had it while in russia. The language and level of voice even scared me. I thought he was going to rip our friends head off. He kept real quiet after that. I just remember one of the Ukraine guys saying "Ideologist. Your a capitialist with no capital. So you become a text book communist."
Those thoughts I think I will remember for a long time.

As for me I do not hate your republicians nor your democrats. I just do not like your 2 party system. As I do not like our 3 party system in Canada( well it is really liberals and then the other 2 (the second one depends on what province your in))

General Woundwort · #**1813** October 1st, 2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
As for me I do not hate your republicians nor your democrats. I just do not like your 2 party system. As I do not like our 3 party system in Canada( well it is really liberals and then the other 2 (the second one depends on what province your in))

OK, so let's review the options...

One-party systems... not.

Two-party systems... you don't like it, and quite frankly I'm not too thrilled with the choices either.

Three-party systems... I don't have any experience with this, but you don't like it much so I'll take your word for it.

Multi-party systems... they do nothing but bicker and build coalitions that Last about as long as my gym socks.

Doesn't leave many options, does it?

geoschmo · #**1814** October 1st, 2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
Doesn't leave many options, does it?

I am sick of partisan political bickering and gridlock. Give me a dictatorship!

Wydraz · #**1815** October 1st, 2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
OK, so let's review the options...

One-party systems... not.

Two-party systems... you don't like it, and quite frankly I'm not too thrilled with the choices either.

Three-party systems... I don't have any experience with this, but you don't like it much so I'll take your word for it.

Multi-party systems... they do nothing but bicker and build coalitions that Last about as long as my gym socks.

Doesn't leave many options, does it?

You left one out: ZERO PARTY SYSTEMS!

If everyone in office were not a member of a party, they wouldn't have to toe the party line. They'd instead have to do what they thought was right. Imagine that.

geoschmo · #**1816** October 1st, 2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wydraz:
You left one out: ZERO PARTY SYSTEMS!

If everyone in office were not a member of a party, they wouldn't have to toe the party line. They'd instead have to do what they thought was right. Imagine that.

Pollyanna. Wishful thinking.

Instead of being beholden to a large political party that by it's sheer size must have a somewhat broad spectrum of political points of view, your representative would answer to a small group of people that have the resources neccesary to get their attention.

The absence of any political parties could, probably would, result in even more grevious abuses then our current two-party system. The parties help to moderate the political landscape and reduce the effect of small highly motivated special interest Groups that just happen to have access to large amounts of resources. Of course it doesn't eliminate this problem entirely, but it really is better then it would be without them.

Alneyan · #**1817** October 1st, 2003, 04:10 PM

Silly remark, even if you have, say, fifteen parties (like in France), you will still have only two parties able to win the elections. So it leads to nothing different, except potential surprises in the first round of the polls. (Like Last year, when the extreme right-wing made it to the second round)

Usually, you have the leader of the left-wing parties against the leader of the right-wing parties, the smaller parties following one of the two sides. It doesn't change much, does it? And when you have 16 candidates for Presidency, representing 15 parties, what is the point? Only two of them stand a chance of winning, and many voters choose their candidate not because they believe he would make a good president, but for other reasons and almost randomly.

General Woundwort · #**1818** October 1st, 2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alneyan:
...many voters choose their candidate not because they believe he would make a good president, but for other reasons and almost randomly.

You think this doesn't happen even in a pure two-party system?

Alneyan · #**1819** October 1st, 2003, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

quote:
Originally posted by Alneyan:
...many voters choose their candidate not because they believe he would make a good president, but for other reasons and almost randomly.

You think this doesn't happen even in a pure two-party system?

Oh. Sure it does happen, my point should have been: having eight times more would-be presidents doesn't mean the choince will be more acurate (and better). Or rather, having more parties doesn't necessarily mean having better politicians.

Loser · #**1820** October 1st, 2003, 05:15 PM

Just in case someone wasn't clear on this, the U.S. doesn't have a two party system because there are any rules disallowing other parties. I suspect everyone here knows that, but I just wanted to mention that U.S. election frequently feature candidates from many parties, it's just the Democrats and the Republicans who usually win.

There are a large number of politically active Libertarians in Colorado. Some time recently we had a Libertarian Sheriff in Telluride, which is kind of funny if you know what Telluride is known for.

That said, most of the time a third party just pulls votes away form one of the big two, at least in the big elections. We do get some interesting governors now and then, however. And there are a few independents in Congress.