Re: Sarah Palin on Fox
- From: Les Cargill <lcargill99@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:48:16 -0500
Squier <squier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Voice of Reason <locust.of.control@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:40 pm, sam booka <Y...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
After seeing her on The Factor and Glenn Beck, she is truly theI do not think she is the figure, motherly or otherwise, that America
Mother Figure America needs badly right now... Truly the Mother of
All Americans! What do you guy's/gal's/etc. think?
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
needs right now. She is far too partisan to represent the average
American. Most Americans have values that span the platforms of our
two major parties. She does not and in some ways she seems fanatical
Americans need to think for themselves right now and always. To do
that, they need to throw off the shackles of the two-party system
whose members are nothing more than the puppets of special interests.
In doing so, they would necessarily cast partisan figures, like Palin
or Pelosi for that matter, aside
George Washington was the only US President ever elected
that was not a member of a political party.
In historical research publications regarding Washington,
he clearly stated that the political party system that was
growing in his time would be the end of fair and true elective
government. George also clearly stated that of greatest benefit to
the people would be to elect representatives to office based upon the
qualities of that individual rather than what political party platform
they would have to heel to.
I agree with you, at least in part, that a democracy cannot be
effective with a 2 party system. because the rich and powerful
have too easy a time controlling them and just presenting the
same product with two different labels. Unfortunately most
people actually believe there is a choice even though both
parties have their strings attached to the same masters
up top the pyramid.
Maybe one day people really will elect representatives
that will truly represent them. There's always a hope for this.
Seems like this is as good an opening as any for me to spam my views on
"de-formalizing" political parties in the US. Some of this may surprise
those who think I'm a rabid Democrat.
As you say, Washington abhorred the idea of formal political parties.
The Constitution makes no mention of them whatsoever. So here's the
deal, in a nutshell: get party names off the ballots. Have nonpartisan
primaries. Require *all* candidates (regardless of party affiliation)
to get a certain number of signatures (number to be determined as a
certain fraction of the relevant electorate, whether the office be
dogcatcher or president).
Well... that would be fine, but you have to go back to how
they formed to start with. Essentially, Adams and Jefferson
both semi-hated political parties ( or something ) but
behaved in a manner that all but assured they'd form.
So we have a nonpartisan primary, in which *anyone* who gathers the
requisite number of signatures can have their name listed, but nowhere
on the ballot will appear the organization/party with which that
individual is associated. All registered voters get to participate.
The top two candidates run in the general election, regardless of
whether both of those individuals belong to the same party, different
parties, or no party.
I'm also leaning toward electing the Vice President separately from the
President, with the same rules applying. If the Prez and VP wind up
being from different parties, so be it.
One result of this would be to prevent Boobus Americanus from blindly
checking off everyone who belongs to a certain party. He'd either have
to start *thinking for himself* and learning something about the
candidates or just stay home.
But Boobus Americanus don't wanna do that, and I can't figure out how
to say what you said without charges of "elitism" being valid.
It'd be different if the elites had a better track record. They used to.
The Tea Party people are the ones whose sons end up in Iraq and in
- Re: Sarah Palin on Fox
- From: RichL
- Re: Sarah Palin on Fox
- Prev by Date: Re: No no no don't do it no mo
- Next by Date: Re: Sarah Palin on Fox
- Previous by thread: Re: Sarah Palin on Fox
- Next by thread: Re: Sarah Palin on Fox