Printable View
Ok, I understand your position better now.Quote:
I don't propose giving anything away. Having majorities in the three groups doesn't need to result in virtual single party rule. The answer would be to start with a bit of honesty instead of trying to paint the democrats as pure evil incarnate. It would also include thinking long term instead of short. Using a majority to dismantle safe guards against extremism is not a wise idea.
Well Ill take your word for it as I have seen you take a few conservative positions . However thisQuote:
Is that so? I'm not a liberal, but while we're throwing blanket statement's around,
is the liberal view of the constitution.Quote:
The constituion is not perfect. I'm not a believer in following it religiously; it needs to be changed with the times and with necessity.
Your beggining to sound like Red Harvest. Can you enlighten us as to why this is the case or as with him is it merely your opinon? If anything I think its liberals who couldnt carea bout the constition. They see it as you do. To us conservatives its the bible of our country.Quote:
I daresay Bush and the GOP couldn't care less about the Constitution.
Right. Thats why Bush want a strict constitutionalist so they can manipulate the constitution. ~:confused:Quote:
The document holds very little weight in the hearts of todays politicans, and is just a tool to be manipulated to their will.
It certainly encroahes on it. But again in times of war this is always done. Why do you think they refer to it as the WAR on drugs. Its so they can get away with this crap. The difference being this is a real war.Quote:
I wouldn't call the Patriot Act very constitutional,, just like you wouldn't call the drug laws very constitutional.
Well your entitled to your opinion. Remember that the democrats also voted for this so trying to pin it on Bush is a little silly dont you think? And again its hardly comparable to what FDR or Linclon did.Quote:
I don't believe it is necesarry for this "war" to succeed. It's wrong now, and it's been wrong every time it's ever been done. From Lincoln the Bush.
The problem with any system where the number of parties is greater than two is that it is always likely there will be a state of no overall control - especially if proportional representation is used.
For example in the UK, the Labour party only polled around 35% of the popular vote - yet because we don't have proportional representation they have around 60% of the seats.
Actually, it's more like the kettle hearing voices in it's head. I vote Republican for the most part. I'm not a big fan of the neo-con/religious right segment, and I don't like the current attitude, but the party position as a whole is closer to my mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What I was saying, is that the GOP is more organized and focused, and is way more effective at making the Dems look like the bad guys, and the DNC currently has no counter. This is why they are dominating. My buzzword crack was actually meant as a compliment, in a backhanded sort of way. Spawned some pretty funny posts though. ~D
Having several parties present in Congress would be a disaster. With no majority, the large parties would have to cater to the smaller, more extreme parties to get anything done. Grid-lock may be good, but chaos is not.
The GOP is in power, but that doesn't give them the right to abuse it. I look at the situation like this: the Dems in Congress are speed bumps. Annoying, yes, but they keep you from doing 100 mph down residential areas and killing kids on the street. The rules are there for a reason, and changing them without really thinking about it will lead to disaster. The Dems screwed themselves over by doing this when they were in charge. Remember the gerrymandering of the congressional districts? They wanted more minorities in Congress, so they basically broke the rules and created minority districts. So they created districts that they will always win, but removed large percentages of Dem voters from other districts to do it. :dizzy2: This is what you want, this is what you get.
No Im talking about how its the left that constantly uses rhetoric and dirty names to smear conservatives not the other way around.Quote:
Actually, it's more like the kettle hearing voices in it's head. I vote Republican for the most part. I'm not a big fan of the neo-con/religious right segment, and I don't like the current attitude, but the party position as a whole is closer to my mindset.
They have no counter because they have no better ideas of their own. All they can do is say Bush is bad conservatives are wrong. Well then whats your plan. Get rid of conservatives. Brilliant thinking by them.Quote:
What I was saying, is that the GOP is more organized and focused, and is way more effective at making the Dems look like the bad guys, and the DNC currently has no counter
Please give me an example of them abusing it?Quote:
The GOP is in power, but that doesn't give them the right to abuse it.
Look IMO its best when we have a president from one party and a congress from the other. This way they dont do very much. Its my considered opinion that for the most part the less these people do the better off we are.
Both sides smear the other side. End of story. "they smear us more than we smear them!" is a little...whiney.
If you speak out against one sides smearing and not the others you're just being biased.
To be honest Gawain, I don't know anything about what the Democrats have plans for aside from opposing Bush. But then there is not much the minority party can do, and if they have plans they aren't exactly going to be headline news.
Do you remember how the republicans came to power? Does the contract with America ring a bell?Quote:
To be honest Gawain, I don't know anything about what the Democrats have plans for aside from opposing Bush. But then there is not much the minority party can do, and if they have plans they aren't exactly going to be headline news.
Err...no, I was 7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I suggest you look at it. It was their ideas and plans for america that brought them to power not bashing democrats.Quote:
Err...no, I was 7.
That, and gerrymandered districts. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Edit-> and I forgot Hillary, her antics in that first term did not help the Dems at all.
My sentiments exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Gawain is missing some aspects of what makes the parties work. The GOP has become a very disciplined party, voting as a block. I'm not sure how it evolved, but it was very important for them while in the minority and worked as a force multiplier. For all the noisy complaints from the GOP about obstructionism, the Democrats have not been that way in decades. They have a much more diverse base. As such even when they had majorities they did not wield nearly as much power as one would expect. Contrary to the current GOP rhetoric, liberals are just a portion of the democratic base. All independents, moderates, and democrats are not liberals--in fact not even the majority.
As for the Contract with America, I was supportive of portions of it, as were many other independents or moderates. That's how the GOP got their majority and passed legislation on specific issues. Those independents/moderates that the conservatives are busy thumbing their noses at (and labeling liberals now) were the ones who cast the votes to put them in a position to do it. I won't forget that.
The GOP has a fairly tight focused organization. They don't tolerate dissent, as their recent conventions have illustrated. The democrats don't have that tight base, nor do I want them too, as it squeezes out moderates and independents--look at what has happened to the GOP of late. You are unlikely to see something like the Contract for the Democrats, mainly because the base is much wider. Also, the GOP has done a good job of trying to take away populist issues before the Democrats can make them their own. Dubya has done much of it with a "free candy" approach to spending and tax reductions. It's like running up $2 trillion in "credit card debt" to gain popularity. You have to give credit where it is due, it has been a brilliant strategy for winning elections. However, we have to deal with the after effects eventually. The GOP better hope people never put 2 and 2 together when the credit card bill arrives.
Winning elections and majorities does not represent good leadership. There is more to leadership than winning a popularity contest.
You may not realize it but most of us conservatives here feel the same way. We consider ourselfs moderates or should I say compasionate conservatives? What ever happened to the contract with america and the republican class of 94? Ive asked that many a time. Well they got swallowed by the system and are now part of the machine. There is so much of this administrations agenda that I and others like me hate but its far better than having most democrats in. They have in many ways let their base down in order to grab the moderates.Again if Lieberman had run I would have voted for him. What the republicans are doing is bibbling away at the dems base. The recent Union split is an example of this as is their reaching out to black and latinos. The dems better come up with some good alternatives soon or go the way of the Do Do. Dont worry maybe a liberal party with a real agenda will take its place ~D Their called Libertarians.Quote:
As for the Contract with America, I was supportive of portions of it, as were many other independents or moderates. That's how the GOP got their majority and passed legislation on specific issues. Those independents/moderates that the conservatives are busy thumbing their noses at (and labeling liberals now) were the ones who cast the votes to put them in a position to do it. I won't forget that.