Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:01:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1138 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > I'm just using the same word choice and the same concept as your first
> > president--maybe he was delusional. I'll paraphrase it and try to use my
> > own words--we elect the people we want to run the country for a while. We,
> > as the people, use the power of democracy by voting--we hold the power.
> > Then we say to our representatives (at least he ones who won the election),
> > 'Yeah, we're giving you the power to run our nation for a while, and if we
> > don't like how you're doing it, then we'll kick your heinies out of office
> > the next election.' Shall I try to explain the democratic process in a way
> > that's simpler for you to understand?
>
> I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is
> that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are
> different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or
> set of ideas can rise to prominence or even get a fair shake in the
> election. The system is rigged, has been for some time, and it's getting worse.
Larry is absolutely right on this. The system is set up to make it
difficult for marginal parties to grow. Essentially, if you wish to gain
any power, you need to subvert one of the existing parties through
infilteration. The question is should you stick to your guns and end up
being ineffectual whiners (Libertarians) or scheming subversives (the
religious right).
But then again, compromise is forced from the start, which might be better
in the long run than having 20 different splinter groups unable to achieve
any consensus. Still, it bugs me when it is clear that the demopublicans
try to freeze out other voices - if Gray Davis (Governor of California)
didn't have "Democrat" under his name, I'd be hard pressed to tell you which
party he belonged to.
>
> If you want to explain the lack of need for the 2nd, explain away how it is
> somehow OK that every other part of the bill of rights has recently been (at
> best) severely watered down by our unelected government in the past year.
Bush and his buddies are the best argument for gun rights that I can think of.
>
> If you want to explain proportional representation, perhaps you can explain
> how gerrymandering is fair?
It makes the idiots who do it go through mind-numbing scheming to accomplish
it. They are so occupied that they don't have time for even more nefarious
schemes ("Here's some blocks, go play over there and don't bother the rest
of us.")
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or set of ideas can (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
