Speaking of Cabin Fever

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no
third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my
wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat
in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor
Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases
AFAIC.

Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize
that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little
concerned with fact and logic.

I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG AS
ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in the
past six years, and that's what will change in January.

How long can you hold your breath?

The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that,
tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the
government.

It's not that I don't like it, as it is sad that you are so close-minded.

As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And it fits very well with the Dems and Repub parties. Both are corrupt and
both have absolute control.

Think about it.

There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small
political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition)
and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a
rigid and extreme ideology.

So extreme issues such as, anti-slavery and women suffrage shouldn't be part
of political discourse?

In parliamentary systems it's often necessary to create coalitions of
several parties to form a government, and the government is then hostage to
the demands of the most extreme minority.

Yeah, that parlimentary system has proven to be a complete failure.

We see this happening now in Iraq, where Al-Malaki's so-called government
can't stand up to the Shiite militias because he needs their political
support.

So you are giving Bush his "props" for creating a full-fledged democracy in
Iraq?

It also happens in relatively "mature" parliamentary democracies, as well,
like Israel, where the hard-line right wing has been able to block progress
on a "land for peace" solution to the Palestinian problem, even though a
majority of Israelis support it.

You're right, we certainly wouldn't want anything like that to occur here in
the good 'ol US of A.

Do so reading Steve, but try the likes of Fred E. Haynes, Steven J.
Rosenstone, Stephen C. Craig, Arthur H. Miller, Marc J. Hetherington....

Op

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
rw wrote:
Opus wrote:
See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit
that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance.

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. ...

McDopus doesn't live in the real world. In the real world only
the people who are elected get to govern.

Good thing that you weren't around in 1854, when the Republican Party was a
third party movement. We might only have a one party system today.

I suppose you'd rather the two independents in congress vote with the
Repubs, rather than taint the Dems. right?

Op

Steve wrote:

People have very short memories; they have already forgotten that a
demagogue gnome almost gave this country a new party victory just a
few years back.

LOL !! How's that Reform Party of Ross Perot doing these days ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no
third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my
wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat
in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor
Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases
AFAIC.


Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize
that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little
concerned with fact and logic.

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."

I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG AS
ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in the
past six years, and that's what will change in January.


How long can you hold your breath?

About three minutes last time I checked, but that was many years ago.

The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that,
tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the
government.


It's not that I don't like it, as it is sad that you are so close-minded.

OK, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I'm "close minded." Perfect
hypocrisy on your part.

As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


And it fits very well with the Dems and Repub parties. Both are corrupt and
both have absolute control.

Baloney. It fits well with the Republicans (or at least it did a month
ago) because they've had (nearly) absolute power for six years. The
Democrats have had virtually NO POWER for six years. If by some chance
they get absolute power, which I hope they don't, I'll expect them to
become as corrupt as the Republicans have proven to be. Neither party
has a monopoly on virtue, nor would your mythical, magical third party
if it somehow came to acquire absolute power, but I confess that the
prospect doesn't keep me awake at night.

There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small
political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition)
and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a
rigid and extreme ideology.




So extreme issues such as, anti-slavery and women suffrage shouldn't be part
of political discourse?

Wow, you're really living in the past! Haven't you gotten any newspapers
down there in Nawth Cackalacky in the past 100 years?

I don't want the people's business to be sidetracked and ignored because
of frivolous, ideological single issues like flag burning, prayer in
schools, capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action,
etc., etc. We have more important problems facing us. I just want some
leaders who are competent to deal with them.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Steve wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Steve wrote:
People have very short memories; they have already forgotten that a
demagogue gnome almost gave this country a new party victory just a
few years back.
LOL !! How's that Reform Party of Ross Perot doing these days ?

See?
Short memories. It fell apart shortly after the election of Jesse
Ventura, primarily due to the actions of Buchanan at their national
convention. It was on the news.

The Reform Party fell apart primarily due to Ross Perot insisting
that it be his personal party rather than a national party. That
cult of personality thing cuts both ways.

Shame really, but people do get the government they deserve.

We agree on that.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Steve wrote:

Shame really, but people do get the government they deserve.

We agree on that.

That's because both of you lack basic language skills, a grounding in
the fundamentals of logic, history and philosophy, even a rudimentary
understanding of moral authority, and a modicum of good sense.

And that's why you get what you deserve.

Wolfgang
no paradox.....no irony......louching?.....****in' kindergarteners.

rw wrote:
Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no
third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my
wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat
in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor
Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases
AFAIC.


Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize
that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little
concerned with fact and logic.

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."

To be fair, it could have been this statement of yours....

"The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions"

- Ken

Steve wrote:
On 6 Dec 2006 17:23:44 -0800, "Wolfgang" wrote:


Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Steve wrote:

Shame really, but people do get the government they deserve.

We agree on that.

That's because both of you lack basic language skills, a grounding in
the fundamentals of logic, history and philosophy, even a rudimentary
understanding of moral authority, and a modicum of good sense.

And that's why you get what you deserve.

Wolfgang
no paradox.....no irony......louching?.....****in' kindergarteners.

Am not.

See, that's the thing about Usenet. The stevies and kennies and
dicklets and predators think they're playing a game......and they're
scoring points.

Wolfgang
give folks just a little bit of time and a few choice
opportunities......they WILL show you what they are. that's
o.k.......that's good.

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Opus wrote:

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."

No, if you do so checking, the vote was a vote against the Repubs. and not a
vote for the Dems, as you did.


About three minutes last time I checked, but that was many years ago.

You might want to work on that, if you think that Jan. holds any real since
of change.

OK, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I'm "close minded." Perfect
hypocrisy on your part.

Not because you don't agree with me Steve, but because you know that the
Dems have been in the same position as the Repubs have been for the past 6
years and you still refuse to except that it will happen again under our
present two-party system. Nothing changes, for the good, under the
two-party system. There's no competition to check the *absolute* power of
the Dems and Repubs.

Baloney. It fits well with the Republicans (or at least it did a month
ago) because they've had (nearly) absolute power for six years. The
Democrats have had virtually NO POWER for six years. If by some chance
they get absolute power, which I hope they don't, I'll expect them to
become as corrupt as the Republicans have proven to be. Neither party has
a monopoly on virtue, nor would your mythical, magical third party if it
somehow came to acquire absolute power, but I confess that the prospect
doesn't keep me awake at night.

No, a third party wouldn't have the magical effect of bestowing virtue on
either the Dems or the Repubs. Not even Jesus H. Christ could do that.

Wow, you're really living in the past! Haven't you gotten any newspapers
down there in Nawth Cackalacky in the past 100 years?

What do yo think brought about an end to slavery and gave women the right to
vote.

Third parties Steve.

The Republican Party was formed to oppose the expansion of slavery. Only
after the Prohibition and Socialist parties began drawing support for
women's suffrage, did the Dems and Repubs finally see the light.

Child labor laws--third party

progressive income tax--third party

40 hour work week--third party

Social Security--third party


I don't want the people's business to be sidetracked and ignored because
of frivolous, ideological single issues like flag burning, prayer in
schools, capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action,
etc., etc. We have more important problems facing us. I just want some
leaders who are competent to deal with them.

No we certainly wouldn't want any of those frivolous Amendments to affect
the Dems or Repubs from enriching their buddies.

Op

wrote:
rw wrote:

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."


To be fair, it could have been this statement of yours....

"The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions"

Get a grip, Janik. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party isn't
"extreme left," any more than, say, John McCain, a very conservative
Republican, is "extreme right." The liberal wing of the Democratic Party
is slightly left of center. That's where I stand.

You've been brainwashed. You've been trained to believe that left = bad,
and that anything even slightly left to the Republican position is
"extreme." Poor, deluded soul that you are.

If Barry Goldwater were alive and in politics today his positions would
be considered "extreme left" by the likes of you. He was pro-choice and
pro-gay-rights. One of his quotes: The main lesson I learned from my
grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the
job that we entrusted them with–to run and govern our country
efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.”

That’s a message worth remembering today. That's how far down the rat
hole of political polarization and right-wing spin we've sunk.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.