View Full Version : The Modern Whig Party
I'm kinda interested in these guys (http://modernwhig.org/). If they can manage to pull off some State-level wins, I would be quite happy. They claim to be "fiscal conservative social liberal," which, if true, and if they can create a coherent platform, would plant them in exactly the right position to grow into a real threat to the duopoly we've had for too long.
This may inspire me to finally join a party. Take a gander, let me know what you think. Wishful thinking on the part of the prosimian, or a real development?
seireikhaan
03-02-2009, 17:11
Wishful thinking. The system is too rigged in favor of the Democrats and Republicans.
I like their platform, however.
I don't mind if it seems unreasonable or unrealistic; unreasonable people are the folks who get things done.
Political parties have come and gone in the past, although with depressing infrequency in our nation. All that's necessary is that the Whigs win some State contests and move on from there. The Republicans stand in danger of becoming a regional party, and the Dems are near experts at self-sabotage. I think there's a realistic chance for a new party to emerge, if it's done carefully and slowly.
-edit-
The other thing that gives me guarded hope is the fact that the majority of Americans describe themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Republicans have gained power in the past by pretending to be fiscal conservatives, and Democrats by pretending to be social liberals. A party that actually speaks to that broad, deep vein of support would be able to pull a lot of people.
I also like the fact that this group is resurrecting an old party instead of inventing a new one. Shows a certain amount of respect for our history and traditions, something that rubs me the right way.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 18:01
It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.
It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.
Heh, true. If anything Lincoln would be deified by the Federalist party.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2009, 19:08
I don't think the name will go over well.
Gregoshi
03-02-2009, 19:25
I don't think the name will go over well.
Why not? It covers just about everything.
Why not? It covers just about everything.
https://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/NemesisPredaking/double-facepalm.jpg
It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.
It's true, the Whigs were anti-slavery, at least by the mid-1800s. I can see how not supporting a state's right to enslave people makes them inappropriate for a party that proclaims "Each state can generally determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs." Until the Modern Whigs renounce their fiendish anti-slavery stance, I shall oppose them!
Adrian II
03-02-2009, 19:46
Why not? It covers just about everything.'cept brains.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2009, 20:04
It's amusing that the party that proclaims respect for state's rights also trumpets Lincoln as their man.
The only state's right that the confederacy cared about was slavery...
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 20:09
A state should be allowed to leave the Union, even for the wrong reasons. Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War.
Strike For The South
03-02-2009, 20:18
A state should be allowed to leave the Union, even for the wrong reasons. Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War.
And let the Europeans keep wining? PFFFTt.
I would say that a state has a right to secede if the feds can come in and rip out anything that had any amount of federal dollars put in it. Which makes any argument now null due to the fact we all suck at the feds tit. Even these farmers in west Texas who complain about the yankee bakers still gobble up cotton subsidies.
As for 1860. The south had no right to secede even if you secession as legal. They saw the writing on the wall and made a last ditch effort. While invoking states right the planter elite sent thousands of southerners to there death defending some "Southern nobility"
Now if you want to talk nullification well talk 1832 but the civil war is all about old boys trying to keep there system in place, nothing more. Don't let the propaganda machine feed you.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-02-2009, 20:23
Secession was never specifically addressed in the then-extant Constitution. The process for joining the Union was spelled out, but no means of departing said union was discussed.
Interestingly, in the process of putting down the secession, Lincoln did accept the secession of most of NW Virginia (modern West Virginia) from Virginia. Certainly can't fault the man on his practicality.:devilish:
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 20:31
As for 1860. The south had no right to secede even if you secession as legal. They saw the writing on the wall and made a last ditch effort. While invoking states right the planter elite sent thousands of southerners to there death defending some "Southern nobility"
That's why I wrote "Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War."
If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.
But whatever. America's broken. The only good news is our flailing about will take most everyone else down, too.
Strike For The South
03-02-2009, 20:34
That's why I wrote "Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War."
If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.
But whatever. America's broken. The only good news is our flailing about will take most everyone else down, too.
I think we also accept that the union has the right to pimp slap wayward state back in its place.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2009, 20:36
That's why I wrote "Really, both sides should've lost the Civil War."
If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.
Don't we have the right to go to war too?
If we accept our formation - a successful rebellion - as valid, I can't see why we would forbid succession.Emphasis on successful. The Constitution doesn't allow for backsies. If a state thinks it's being short-changed, they can try to leave- but don't be surprised that everyone else doesn't want to let them walk away from their commitments.
I think one of the worst blows to state's rights was the direct election of senators- and the states willingly did that to themselves.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 20:55
Don't we have the right to go to war too?
Emphasis on successful. The Constitution doesn't allow for backsies. If a state thinks it's being short-changed, they can try to leave- but don't be surprised that everyone else doesn't want to let them walk away from their commitments.
Ah, so might makes right.
Ah, so might makes right.
Pretty much, yeah.
Strike For The South
03-02-2009, 20:56
Ah, so might makes right.
At the end of the day, yes. Your ideals mean bugger all if you can't fight for them
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 20:59
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
Why? That was what allowed us to win our independence. We could've written dozens of declarations of independence and accomplished nothing. It was force that allowed it to happen.
There is no mechanism in the Constitution for a state to back out. They can declare they're leaving, but the other states and federal government can force them to live up to the obligations- and that's how it worked, in a nutshell.
Strike For The South
03-02-2009, 21:08
Disgusting.
And the only reason you are allowed to feign such outrage is because the good ol US of A has been killing exploiting and coup d eating people for the past 100 years.
Ideals are fine as long as you're willing to hit the other man in the mouth. Otherwise you're just a pacifist and you get someone else to hit the guy in the mouth.
LittleGrizzly
03-02-2009, 21:13
Disgusting.
I think so too. Might = Right is the most :daisy: theory we have but it seems to hold true for alot of people...
The major problem being it validates almost every wrong action ever... because at the time they were mighty enough so they were also right(y).. the holocaust and every individual case of peadophilia seems to be validated by the statement...
Oops... well off topic!
I would be extremely happy for a 3rd party to rise in USA, even if it wasn't exactly my views just the fact they are not the 'bought' politicians from either of the 2 major partys is enough to please me..
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 21:13
So if the French hadn't bailed us out...
Parliamentary monarchy would be a better system than a republic?
The major problem being it validates almost every wrong action ever... because at the time they were mighty enough so they were also right(y).. the holocaust and every individual case of peadophilia seems to be validated by the statement...
Disagree. Moral force counts for something, and it's part of the equation. A pedophile rapist might be able to force himself on a child, but then the much greater force of law enforcement will unleash on the molester, if all goes as it should. Likewise, land-grabbing megalomaniacs like Napoleon and Hitler can "might makes right" their way for a while, but eventually the rest of the world gets sick of their behavior and smacks them down.
The good news is that sick, twisted sadists are a tiny minority of humanity. The rest of us can kick their asses anytime.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 21:18
So when America's experiment is overthrown, it will have been wrong all along?
The good news is that sick, twisted sadists are a tiny minority of humanity. The rest of us can kick their asses anytime.
Unless we've voted for them.
Yoyoma1910
03-02-2009, 21:21
Good, cause my hair is starting to thin. I want my pompadour back.
Strike For The South
03-02-2009, 21:22
So when America's experiment is overthrown, it will have been wrong all along?
.
Oh no. But ideals mean crap when you can't defend them.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-02-2009, 21:28
Ah, so might makes right.
How many wars have we gotten into in the 20th century in the name of human rights? If going to war to protect people is wrong then why isn't our military 1/4 the size it currently is?
Of course you can argue that the north went to war for reasons other than ending slavery. But that doesn't mean that "both sides deserved to lose the war".
So when America's experiment is overthrown, it will have been wrong all along?I don't mean a moral "right"*. The south thought it could leave the US by its own accord. They were proven wrong. There's no moral judgment there.
*It is worth at least noting that ending slavery was certainly a moral right however. :yes:
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-02-2009, 21:40
How many wars have we gotten into in the 20th century in the name of human rights? If going to war to protect people is wrong then why isn't our military 1/4 the size it currently is?
To the former question: uh, none?
To the latter: I'm not clear on what you're saying, but could it because we aren't interested in doing what is right?
Of course you can argue that the north went to war for reasons other than ending slavery. But that doesn't mean that "both sides deserved to lose the war".
The North wanted power; it would be weakened by the loss of the Southern states. Now, if you're suggesting that it's fine and dandy to wage war for naked power...
Strike For The South
03-02-2009, 21:48
Damn Cattle thieves...
Leave Oklahoma out of this.
Land cattele I make do.
CountArach
03-02-2009, 21:50
When two parties run the system that determines if any third party rises then it will not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_(British_political_faction)#Name
:smash:
Rhyfelwyr
03-02-2009, 21:55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_(British_political_faction)#Name
:smash:
Hey the Whigs don't seem so bad after reading that. :beam:
But they became the 'baddies' didn't they? From what I remember in my History class, the Whigs were the main rivals of the Tories for much of the 19th C., and they consisted of mostly stinking rich industrial giants who rejected any legistlation against child labour, factory conditions etc. Yes, the Tories were the party of welfare once upon a time...
LittleGrizzly
03-02-2009, 22:00
A pedophile rapist might be able to force himself on a child, but then the much greater force of law enforcement will unleash on the molester, if all goes as it should.
Likewise, land-grabbing megalomaniacs like Napoleon and Hitler can "might makes right" their way for a while, but eventually the rest of the world gets sick of their behavior and smacks them down.
Even if we get really specific and say might=right in the mid to long term, so that most paedophiles and the likes of Hitler and Napoleon are actually not right. This isn't always the case, sometimes wrong is done and enforced by the mighty... so does that make thier wrong's right(y) ?
Best example i can come up with off the top of my head would be the recent case of the young raped girl in Somalia who was stoned to death. Her rapist was right because he had the might to enact the rape and then hold off on any consequences, her getting stoned to death was right because the villagers had the might to enact such a punishment. Absent a miracle there will be no medium or long term righting of this wrong... so either might = right and what happened to this girl was right... or might = right should be scrapped as a fallacy....
The fact is usually in the west, might does infact equal right,(im thinking mainly our criminal justice system foreign policy gets a bit murkier) but i see at as a terrible justification for anything at all as it can be streched to validate the most horrible of things...
The good news is that sick, twisted sadists are a tiny minority of humanity. The rest of us can kick their asses anytime.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-02-2009, 22:10
Okay....
1. I have heard worse platforms than that advanced by this renewed Whig party. However, since party platforms have, de facto, begun to matter very little in our mediated vult-of-personality elections, the content of their platform is pretty well moot.
2. The USA has never had a 3 major parties for more than an election or so, and in each case the results of those elections also included the dissolution or cannibalization of the weakest of the 3.
3. Though it is not expressly spelled out, I believe states should be able to secede by the reverse process of their inclusion. To whit, if you can get your state legislature and executive to agree to secede, and then successfully petition the Congress of the United States for their approval, you should be able to secede.
3. Though it is not expressly spelled out, I believe states should be able to secede by the reverse process of their inclusion. To whit, if you can get your state legislature and executive to agree to secede, and then successfully petition the Congress of the United States for their approval, you should be able to secede.
I think the way out for a state would be the same as any change to the Constitution is made- requiring the approval of the majority of the states in addition to what you've outlined.
Don Corleone
03-02-2009, 23:29
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the Confederacy if they themselves had attempted a peaceful resolution. Last time I checked, it was in fact a Southern offense on Fort Sumter that got the whole shooting match started.
Look, ATPG, I understand your point about freedom to associate and dissociate. That's all well and good. But as others have said, more subtly, that I'm going to lay out here:
1) There such things as absolute universal truths, in and of themselves worth fighting for, worth dying for and worth killing for. We can argue all we want about my right to self-determination, but if I'm bullwhipping my 3 year old for not picking up her toys, the state absolutely has a right to overstep my abused parental authority.
2) The loser buys. Sorry, end of story. Yes, at the end of the day, if the French hadn't sailed into the mouth of the Chesapeake, allowing the British to reinforce Cornwallis, we indeed would have been very, very wrong. We'd still be writing "I'm very sorry for what I did to Georgie3" on endless miles of blackboards from here to New Caledonia (aka, Washington state).
As I began... don't feel too bad for the South. They knew full well they had options other than starting a conflict. Their thought was that Northerners wouldn't fight back and they could evict all federal offices/forts, etecera. As Strike brought up, unless they were willing to tear up and return any federally funded public works projects, like all their railroads, they were a bit hypocritical.
The older I get, the less romantic I get about the leaders of the of the confederacy and the more I come to see them as a failed cabal. Not so much the military, but the polticians of the confederacy had a LOT to answer for, and there were military guys like P. T. Beauragard who should have known better than firing on a federal fort for 3 straight days. What did they really expect to happen?
Boyar Son
03-03-2009, 01:47
The only state's right that the confederacy cared about was slavery...
not true the evil north exercised its unfair power over the south many times. then the south had to rebel & show you the meaning of FFFRREEDOOMM.
Strike For The South
03-03-2009, 03:53
not true the evil north exercised its unfair power over the south many times. then the south had to rebel & show you the meaning of FFFRREEDOOMM.
Wrong.
Major Robert Dump
03-03-2009, 04:19
So what will the Whig party members be called? What sort of ideology label will we pin on them. What will their animal be? What color? I hope the person who wrote that "We're for Hillary" song writes their mantra.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-03-2009, 08:28
2) The loser buys. Sorry, end of story. Yes, at the end of the day, if the French hadn't sailed into the mouth of the Chesapeake, allowing the British to reinforce Cornwallis, we indeed would have been very, very wrong. We'd still be writing "I'm very sorry for what I did to Georgie3" on endless miles of blackboards from here to New Caledonia (aka, Washington state).
So there aren't any universal truths worth fighting for... unless you know you can win.
I'm still not defending the Confederates. Hell, my natural regionalism would preculde me from "rooting" for them even if they weren't propping up human freakin' slavery. However, we should've let them go. We certainly didn't fight them to end slavery; we fought them because we value the material power of the South more than freedom of association.
It's funny. If we lost the revolution, would I (or more accurately, someone with similar ideas) be on a wargaming forum pointing out that Washington and those rebels might've been on to something, even though I'm not defending them?
So there aren't any universal truths worth fighting for... unless you know you can win.
I'm still not defending the Confederates. Hell, my natural regionalism would preculde me from "rooting" for them even if they weren't propping up human freakin' slavery. However, we should've let them go. We certainly didn't fight them to end slavery; we fought them because we value the material power of the South more than freedom of association.
It's funny. If we lost the revolution, would I (or more accurately, someone with similar ideas) be on a wargaming forum pointing out that Washington and those rebels might've been on to something, even though I'm not defending them?
I've got to confess, I still don't see what you're arguing about. Are you saying that it's morally wrong for a government to stop any subset from declaring independence?
Do you think groups who enter into contract with each other should be allowed to unilaterally withdraw with no repercussion? If you enter into a business partnership with someone and one day decide you don't like the terms anymore and are dissolving the contract you signed, is it morally wrong for your partner to expect you to abide by the terms?
I don't see where the moral argument is coming from. :shrug:
We certainly didn't fight them to end slaveryNo, the South fought to protect slavery. Let's not forget who fired the first shots. The North fought to preserve the Constitution. Southern states wanted to opt out and when the rest of the country didn't agree, the south started a war. A war they lost. Therefore they don't get out of their obligation.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-03-2009, 09:13
I've got to confess, I still don't see what you're arguing about. Are you saying that it's morally wrong for a government to stop any subset from declaring independence?
Do you think groups who enter into contract with each other should be allowed to unilaterally withdraw with no repercussion? If you enter into a business partnership with someone and one day decide you don't like the terms anymore and are dissolving the contract you signed, is it morally wrong for your partner to expect you to abide by the terms?
I don't see where the moral argument is coming from.
The terms of the Constitution didn't mention leaving; it is reasonable that the consequences be total war?
Specifically:
Are you saying that it's morally wrong for a government to stop any subset from declaring independence?
Why is it morally right? If we suppose that government is supposed to be at least vaguely representative, and a subset feels it is not represented, granting independence is certainly a better way of rectifying the situation than killing a huge section of the populace in a war to keep them, is it not?
Of course, since might makes right, anything goes. Really, why bother discussing anything? Israel is obviously right since it can beat the crap out of the Palestinians and any of its neighbors. Ditto China's abuse of minority political and religious groups, heck, even the Saudi's penchant for stoning rape victims is cool.
Don Corleone
03-03-2009, 15:03
The terms of the Constitution didn't mention leaving; it is reasonable that the consequences be total war?
Specifically:
Why is it morally right? If we suppose that government is supposed to be at least vaguely representative, and a subset feels it is not represented, granting independence is certainly a better way of rectifying the situation than killing a huge section of the populace in a war to keep them, is it not?
To continue Xiahou's analogy, let's say you set up a legal practice with other partners and the two of you set up an office. You decide you want to make some extra money by representing known pedophiles and other predators. While initially tolerant of the idea, over time, your partners grow increasingly horrified at your practice and take a vote among partners to ban that sort of practice in the future.
You angrily sever your relationship with the firm, but refuse to vacate the premises. You continue to use their office supplies, their office space, their desks, even hold client meetings on their premises. They start to strongly indicate that you owe them your partnership stake so you must either rejoin and adhere to the bylaws.
But you decide to follow the 'noble cause' of standing up for your rights. But you don't just refuse to rejoin. You don't even refuse to vacate their premises and return their property. You shoot one of their security guards and threaten to shoot more if they don't let you do exactly what you want.
Who's employing a "Might makes right" argument now? And yes, I do believe the above metaphor to be apt for the situation from 1860 through April 1861.
Don Corleone
03-03-2009, 15:04
Or the short winded version... the South was engaged in an abhorent practice and the South began the violence. How exactly do they have the moral highground?
Strike For The South
03-03-2009, 17:44
Or the short winded version... the South was engaged in an abhorent practice and the South began the violence. How exactly do they have the moral highground?
We're better looking?
Or the short winded version... the South was engaged in an abhorent practice and the South began the violence. How exactly do they have the moral highground?
Because the North profited quite handsomely from the South's 'abhorent practices' since the nation's inception. Slaves were bought, sold and shipped from northern ports in the decades leading up to the Civil War. The South also grew a superior strain of cotton to that found in India, and grew it in abundance. Plus, thanks to slavery Southern crops were priced competively to crops grown elsewhere and could be delivered to the North & Europe in far less time, factors that certainly made Southern cotton highly desireable by Northern & European textile industries. Beyond cotton we must also look at the highly sought crop known as tobacco, which the entire western world was seemingly enamored with.
If slavery and the occupation of a moral high ground was the central issue of the conflict then why was the Emancipation Proclamation not issued prior to or at the onset of hostilities? Lincoln hedged his bets during that first year and hoped for a speedy end to the conflict. When it became apparent it was going to be a long and bloody war he sought to undermine the Southern war effort in every way possible. With the Emancipation Proclamation he hoped that it would 1) compel enough slaves to flee their southern masters thus hindering the Confederacy's war effort and 2) prevent European powers from lending critical assistance to the Confederacy by gambling that they would adopt a more populist, anti-slavery stance that was widely adopted and disseminated by the various European strains of Christianity.
The attack on Fort Sumter was certainly stupid but it can hardly be compared to Pearl Harbor. The North would have waged war on the South regardless of whether the latter fired the first shot. Slavery or not there is no way in hell the Union was going to let its cash crop cow just wander off the farm. Only a lunatic or an acute pacifist would just let all that tax revenue, land, crops, major waterways, etc. slip from their grasp.
The North would have waged war on the South regardless of whether the latter fired the first shot.
I'm gonna need an extra-big barrel to pack all of those assumptions away for the winter ...
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-03-2009, 19:25
Or the short winded version... the South was engaged in an abhorent practice and the South began the violence. How exactly do they have the moral highground?
I wasn't sayin' they had it at all. And as Spino pointed out, the North really didn't either.
It was a war for power and wealth for the North, and a war for independence (to carry on a depraved practice) for the South.
This whole tangent started because I pointed out an inconsistency between championing states rights and also Lincoln, who was the figurehead of the idea that states cannot leave the union. Which strikes me as at odds with the rights of states, more or less.
Then I was cheerfully told I was supporting slavery, and then told that might makes right. Which I find such an abhorrent attitude that I was shocked to see it on the Backroom. Much like I'd discovered my neighbors regularly beat their dog.
Wait, how did you know I beat my dog? What are you, stalking me?
Yoyoma1910
03-03-2009, 19:30
Alright alright...
The civil war was silly, and so are a lot of these arguments.
1) Slavery was practiced on both sides.
2) In the end both sides were offering to end slavery. It's true. The south sent a delegate to Europe offering to abolish slavery in exchange for national recognition. Duncan F. Kenner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_F._Kenner).
_________________________________________________
More on topic of the modern whigs:
Animal:
Owl.
____________
The U.S. electoral system may be able to fairly handle third parties in lower elections, but in presidential elections a third contender causes an issue. If no contender reaches the required amount of votes, then the decision of who wins goes to the House.
There's no run off.
Strike For The South
03-03-2009, 19:51
The south fought to keep the peculiar institution. Cottons the only thing we had and the North was becoming more and more independent of the old ways while we were not. The south saw the writing on the wall and made a gambit.
I know the CSA is a cool side to take for states righters. But as someone who had this stiff forced down my throat all through schooling, trust me it's nothing to be proud of.
InsaneApache
03-03-2009, 20:05
The civil war (American version) was inevitable after independence was gained. It was just a matter of when.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-03-2009, 20:12
The south fought to keep the peculiar institution. Cottons the only thing we had and the North was becoming more and more independent of the old ways while we were not. The south saw the writing on the wall and made a gambit.
I know the CSA is a cool side to take for states righters. But as someone who had this stiff forced down my throat all through schooling, trust me it's nothing to be proud of.
Goddammit stop implying I get off to Lee's beard.
/Longstreet's was much more handsome, for starters
Strike For The South
03-03-2009, 20:22
Goddammit stop implying I get off to Lee's beard.
/Longstreet's was much more handsome, for starters
Woah cowboy, I was speaking in general terms. I am also begining to find Lee a bit overrated. Off to the monastery
So what will the Whig party members be called?
Wiggles.
LittleGrizzly
03-03-2009, 20:55
Wouldn't they be Whiggers... hey how about starting a Nhig party.... ~;)
Strike For The South
03-04-2009, 00:17
Texas V White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v_White)
Secession, illegal since 1869.
Proletariat
03-04-2009, 02:48
Wouldn't they be Whiggers... hey how about starting a Nhig party.... ~;)
'Nhiggers' happens to be a very offensive term to an unutterable group of people in the United States. I know you meant no harm but please consider your implications more carefully
Seamus Fermanagh
03-04-2009, 02:52
'Nhiggers' happens to be a very offensive term to an unutterable group of people in the United States. I know you meant no harm but please consider your implications more carefully
I accepted his "wink" as a promise not to go further along those lines.
Strike For The South
03-04-2009, 02:53
I say we ban all 3.
I dont think the party is going to be succesful solely because the word "whig" sounds a bit british.
Yes, I have that little faith in the american voter.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-04-2009, 04:20
I dont think the party is going to be succesful solely because the word "whig" sounds a bit british.
Yes, I have that little faith in the american voter.
No faith in the American voter?
You are now ready to run for office! :devilish:
Hosakawa Tito
03-04-2009, 04:48
When two parties run the system that determines if any third party rises then it will not.
The New York State City motto...
Hosa, for New York City, that's one party too many. My vote was never so worthless as when I was a registered Independent in NYC.
Hosakawa Tito
03-04-2009, 14:16
The City is the State. Everyone west & north of the Hudson is lucky to get a few crumbs from the City plate. New York Republicans are really just Dems in disguise, and are kept around to give the appearance of a two party system. Ever see a New York GOP candidate accomplish anything nationally?
My vote was never so worthless as when I was a registered Independent in NYC.
Comrade, unless you vote Democratic in this State, your ballot might as well be toilet paper. NYC should be a city state and the rest of us should secede and form our own.
I say we ban all 3.
Did you actually read my post, SFTS? >.>
Strike For The South
03-04-2009, 20:38
Did you actually read my post, SFTS? >.>
Yes.
I was talking about Louis, Adrian, and Little Grizzly
Very clever post though, I enjoy the wiggles to.
Yes.
I was talking about Louis, Adrian, and Little Grizzly
Oh, OK. My bad.
Very clever post though, I enjoy the wiggles to.
Thanks, although the Wiggles on TV frighten me.
Ideals are fine as long as you're willing to hit the other man in the mouth. Otherwise you're just a Frenchman and you get the Americans to hit the guy in the mouth.
Fixed for Strike-ness.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.