I'm tired of everyone putting down the left and right wingers. We are all Americans, right? We have the right to believe what we want. This is just another way to hate a group of people (Racism) for showing their true selves. Rights, you may not like Moore but you should atleast see the movie, once you see it you can judge it. Moore is a great man, he has saved lives. I will give examples if asked. Lefts, don't resort to name calling. It was Ray's right to not want his title in Moores movie. I mean, lets face it, when you heard the title Bradbury jumped to mind. He has the right to say he doesnt like Moore. But I found it extremely rude of Bradbury to say the awards he got meant nothing to him, these awards where given to him after people read his work and thought it great. What if, as a fan, you said "hey ray, I loved ___" and he responded with "Who cares, you dont have any taste!"
So, please, we are all men here. Lets behave in a civilized manner, otherwise, we get nowhere.
Posts: 7 | Location: Conway, MI, USA | Registered: 29 June 2004
Being independent is the way to go.....to heck with parties, vote for the person (who lies the least because ALL politicians lie! It's in their genes or something! )
Posts: 213 | Location: New Berlin, WI, USA | Registered: 21 June 2004
Just why do these puerile pundits hardly ever designate some other info about themselves except a screen name? Safer hiding away when they throw garbadge around?
It's odd to rememebr that these same characters were around when I was growing up. Today, in a growing interest, the schoolyard and streets have been replaced by cyberspace. Which means, in fact, human nature never changes.
Posts: 3954 | Location: South Orange County, CA USA | Registered: 28 June 2002
Sure it does. At least in the schoolyard you had to look someone in the eye, and you took a risk. These guys just take pot shots from cyberspace and it makes them feel tough. It's a real substitute for being real.
The idea of voting for the person is interesting and sounds great, except that the political parties are the entities that get people elected, and so the "individual" is beholden to the interests of the party that elects them.
In other words, if you vote for either Kerry or Bush, thinking that you're voting for them as individuals, and that it is as individuals that they will make their decisions, think again. While leaders sometimes act in ways that contradict the interests of the party that got them there, I would argue that is pretty rare.
If Kerry gets in, the interests of the Democratic party will take priority. If Bush gets back in, the interests of the Republican party will take precedence.
Vote indepdendently if you like, but don't forget that the reality is that the parties exercise great power.
I'm with you on your points about voting for the individual or the party. Though I try to vote for the individual, my ballot usually looks like I chose the straight party voting option.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. Like the electoral college, the two-party system seems to work best for a Republic. To win an election, each candidate, and, thus, each party must try to broaden their appeal to the most voters, thereby coming closer to a consensus. So the candidate, or party, that appeals to only a small portion of the electorate won't win. (I know, I know: Well, d'uh.) What I'm saying is that those candidates and parties that can only appeal to the fringe and not the mainstream are doomed to lose. The mainstream, or majority, view wins. Most of the time, that's a good thing. As bad as some think the democratic process is now, imagine how it would be if, like some countries in Europe, we had a multitude of parties. Imagine trying to govern with only 28% of the vote rather than the 49 to 51% the winner usually snags.
Best,
Pete
Posts: 614 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 30 April 2002
Well, Pterran, the idea of a multiparty system is far superior to the idea of the "winner takes all" that is currently on exhibition in the US. Coalition goverments end up being formed, and when there are colatitons, there is usually more debate and more exploration of issues before they get voted on. In a two party system that political debate is missed, and auhtoritarian-like rulers end up dictating what they want.
I agree a coalition government provides for debate and exploration of issues but I think there�s plenty of that in a system like ours here in the USA. (And I�m all for debate. And gridlock, too. Because as long as the government can�t get much done, it can't do much harm.)
It may appear to you that Bush is an authoritarian-like ruler but our system of checks-and-balances pretty much eliminates the possibility of him getting away with much. If that were the case, we Conservatives would be happy as clams about how we�d gotten all we�d ever asked for. Instead, we�re a grumbling lot, dismayed at how Liberals seem to stymie our every move. No, he�s merely the President. The CEO, as it were, of the country. Not king. Not a tyrant. Easily replaced every 4 years, sooner if he makes too much trouble. By all means, we should respect the office because it�s the one single person that represents the country. But the real governing power resides with the Congress, where 535 Representatives and 102 Senators squabble away.
Best,
Pete
Posts: 614 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 30 April 2002
...But they don;t seem to read what's passed to them before they pass it themselves...Even though I know the political structure of the US government, I still prefer the Canadian one, for example - in a coalition, the other party will be adamant in having its own way, and both will have to compromise before it gets passed to the senate - in the US style goverment, a party may push things through to the senate, which is not usually all that interested in doing its job - so things get passed through without much friction.
Translator: Your claim to know the US system of goverment seems like a bit of an overclaim if you can seriously assert that the two-party system stymies debate and results in a winner-takes all condition. The checks and balances are very, very real. Ask Bush and his adminstration how "winner-takes-all" they feel. Better yet, ask Clinton how universally powerful he was -- stymied in every effort by allegations and investigations. I bet they would both take vigorous exception to your overly simplistic categorization of US politics and laugh in your face at your naive view of US government.
)