Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Identifying with Political Parties

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Identifying with Political Parties
enochville
Member
Member # 2657

 - posted      Profile for enochville   Email enochville       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This topic is a tangent off the "Insta-poll". I want to find out what went into your decisions to register as a member of the political party (or, Independent) that you did.

I started off as a Republican because my parents were Republicans and I was conservative on social issues. Around 2000, I was so fed up with my choices in any party at all levels of government, that I wanted to send a message that I was dissatisfied, so I registered as an Independent. But, then, as I understood it, I could not vote in the primaries, and if I ever wanted to run for an office, I thought that it would look better if I had been supporting a party for a while, so I rejoined the Republican party even though I disliked Bush, Frist, and a host of others. Yet, I am too conservative to join the liberal Democrats. None of the other parties were a good fit and they don't have much influence anyway. (I now know that in my state, Independents can vote in the primaries of either party.)

Now, I am going to campaign for Mitt Romney, so I am becoming active in my state's Republican party so as to have more access to resources to promote my candidate. This is personally difficult, though, because so many who are active in this party are staunch Bush supporters, so I feel like a Benedict in my own party.

Posts: 69 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well I'm never joining a party I have to pay to support, though I'm more than willing to give my time in support of a "good cause". I consider myself a libertarian, but I don't like the Australian Libertarian Party. I think I shall have to create my own one day.

Luckily for me though, I don't have to vote, even when I'm old enough.

[ March 07, 2006, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Automath ]

Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I registered as independent when I was 18 because I didn't care enough about any party to identify with it. I am still registered as independent because I haven't found one that I can support. Probably closest to libertarian, but they are kind of dysfunctional.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was a Republican during the Reagan years - those were the salad days. As time went on, I discovered the Libertarian party. I registered with the party, went to a convention, donated money to candidates, causes, and the party.

9/11

I split with the Libertarian Party over their foreign policy stance - let the world take care of itself and nothing will harm us. Particularly appalling was the lack of support for retaliation in Afghanistan. Still register Libertarian.

Most recently, I've decided that it will be more effective to push libertarian and small government ideals from within the Republican party.

I went to a meeting of the SVGOP, and I was disgusted by the rah-rah us-vs-them attitude of trying to find a way to make Democrats look foolish. It was all about "beating Democrats" and not about good policy, or even about electing Republicans. They started the whole meeting off with a pledge of allegiance to the flag, where I settled for quietly ommitting "Under God" as is my custom.

It's hard to find a jacket that fits, when there are only two on the rack in your size.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enochville
Member
Member # 2657

 - posted      Profile for enochville   Email enochville       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I feel your pain, The Drake. I hate that focus on "the game" of politics. I, like you, want politics to be about the competition of ideas in the hopes of finding good policy.

Automath, in the US, one does not have to pay to join a party.

Posts: 69 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Automath, in the US, one does not have to pay to join a party.
I can't express how surprised, and possibly jealous, I'm feeling right now...
Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am a member of the Concord Party.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I first registered to vote in WV in 1983 I registered as a Republican. When I began to be sick of voting by absentee ballot (I was in college in PA) as well as concerned about my ability to make informed decisions about races in districts some 350 miles away, I registered in PA as a Democrat.

In both cases my choice of party was dictated by my belief that that was the party in which my ability to vote in the primary was relevant.

In recent years, I've become so disgusted with the behavior of both parties (particularly their focus on simply acquiring power, as noted above), as well as unconvinced that my primary votes matter all that much, that I'm now Independent. I've never voted a straight party ticket, regardless of registration; the only reason I ever joined either party was to be able to vote in primaries (which you can't do as an Independent in PA, at least last I checked).

My actual political beliefs are utterly unrepresented by any major platform.

Perhaps now would be a good time to put in a plug for the Concord Party, which got started as a response to the kind of disaffection we're discussing here, and which I still believe can go somewhere with the application of a little steam.


edited to add: Ooh, you beat me, Jav! Dang phone! [Big Grin]

[ March 07, 2006, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now I'm feeling guilty. Not only have I not consolidated the Concord Party's solid platform of passed measures, I snubbed it in this thread. [Frown]

Edited to add: There's now a thread in the Concord Party lobby that lists the Immigration, Taxation, and Energy Policy positions of the Concord Party.

[ March 07, 2006, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: The Drake ]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do I need to be a voting American (I'm not even American, let alone old enough to vote) to join and participate in all sections of the forum on that site?

[ March 07, 2006, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Automath ]

Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Questions about the concord party? Ask them here (no registration required)

And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread. [Wink]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I turned 18, I was heading out to wisconsin, where I did not need to register as a member of a party in order to vote. When I came back to MA, I had formed enough of an opinion about the respective parties that I didn't want to officially be part of either, so I registered as unaffiliated, where I remain today.

Enochville, if you don't mind my asking... why are you planning on campaigning for Mitt? If you want to start a new thread on it, rather then further derail this one, I'll find it [Smile]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enochville
Member
Member # 2657

 - posted      Profile for enochville   Email enochville       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that is cool about the Concord Party. But, I think for now I'll stick with the Republican Party and try to change things from the inside with my candidate and participate in the Ornery discussions. But, I support the mission of the Concord and wish it good luck!

It might help you, Concordians, to put forward a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. You'll get a little national exposure through the press.

Posts: 69 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, actually, I wanted to comment on something Pelegius said in the Lobby: "So, if I may present a radical idea. Why don't we stand for the right of people to vote on these issues in referenda?"

And there's something else in that thread that I thought was interesting, but I'm not going to bother finding it.

Of course, I'd rather do it in that thread in the Lobby or just somewhere where my opinion might actually hold weight. On the other hand, I'm Australian so I should probably just start my own forum for Australians. But the effort. Oh the effort! [Frown]

[ March 07, 2006, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Automath ]

Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, I made a forum: http://believeusordie.proboards92.com/index.cgi? . I'm in the process of writing a constitution, but I need one more person to join because I'd feel silly writing a constution that says "I" believe, and not we.

Edit: Actually, no need for a Constitution. Here's the welcome message:

http://believeusordie.proboards92.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1141749812

[ March 07, 2006, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Automath ]

Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeerilritorne
Member
Member # 2804

 - posted      Profile for kenmeerilritorne   Email kenmeerilritorne       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know, drake. I think the media gave bush a large pass for about 18 months after 9/11.
Funny. I fit, more or less, into the 'liberal' label, however awkwardly it applies. More on that in a bit.

But I could vote for Mitt. Partly because the assumption is that Hillary will be her opponent, and I ain't taking none o' *that*, and partly because he's a good Mormon boy and I was raised a good Mormon boy and I think that, at least Outside of Utah and Greater Zion (heavy Mormon zones largely found in the montane West), where folks is a tad loony about their religious beliefs, Mormons make fine moderate conservatives. And I mostly get along well with moderate conservatives.

As for party identification: I think the majority of us identify with the ghost of our favored parties. I, for example, hie for the days of labor activism and the Common Man vibe expressed in what I shalkl call Old School Democratic values. But that old ghost hount won't hunt.

I assume the same holds true for Republican leaners. They yearn for reduced governmental interference with common affairs, and Teddy Roosevelt's emanation of the Common Man vibe.

This next election will show, I think, just how empty those ghost chambers have become. For me, the politicians f either party that I can embrace are fringesters, guys like Ron Paul and John McCain, or Dennis Kuccinich and Russ Feingold. (McCain, for all his stature, is a rogue elephant, god love him.)

quote:
I split with the Libertarian Party over their foreign policy stance - let the world take care of itself and nothing will harm us.
It is oft cited as conventional wisdom, "plain as the nose in your face", that we must sometimes *intervene* (bombs away!) abroad to secure our nation.

Somehow, the idea of Don't **** With Them and They Won't **** With You is denied any chance to demonstrate what traction it might have.

I would think that if ANYBODY could prove the value of the Golden Rule -- the most fundamental law of postitive human relationships, it would be the world's supreme superpower.

If, for example, the $100-plus billion we've poured in the War on Terror ABROAD were put into actually securing our borders (which are porous to the point of making a weekend in a tuberculosis sanitarium seem safe haven for someone with AIDS), using all the technology and imagination we certainly CAN muster, we'd be little worried about hairy-faced men shouting Death to AMerica!

If necessary, we could mini-nuke Iran's nuke facilities to make a sinmple point.

As it is, our foreign policy is so pathetically inept, and worse, aggresively and destructively inept, that arguing that the world needs us to take care of it in order for us to take care of urselves against the world, becomes not specious but completely irrelevant.

Every day, following the same old same old bang-em-up posse mentality, we grow less and less safe.

There is an inherent contradiction between Go It Alone preemptive war doctrine's smug assertion that folks who say Leave It Alone are naive. Either way, it's isolationist. But the former, sadly, is isolationist with mounting enemies. The latter offers new chances to be friends and partners in the world that doesn't require -- because it won't ALLOW -- us to be the global policemant, with all the resentment that incurs and corruption it invites.

Posts: 373 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Somehow, the idea of Don't **** With Them and They Won't **** With You is denied any chance to demonstrate what traction it might have."

It is my opinion that Clinton was happy to try that during his Presidency in the ME. See how well it worked?

Or, if you understandably disagree with that example, take China, which for centuries followed that credo as far as a nation can. And for centuries, people kept coming there and messing with them, from the Mongols, to the Jesuits, to the Manchurians and Japanese.

It's a nice theory.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If, for example, the $100-plus billion we've poured in the War on Terror ABROAD were put into actually securing our borders (which are porous to the point of making a weekend in a tuberculosis sanitarium seem safe haven for someone with AIDS), using all the technology and imagination we certainly CAN muster, we'd be little worried about hairy-faced men shouting Death to AMerica!"

I have to disagree with you again. Let us say that the administration (any administration) followed the necessary procedures to secure our borders. I very much doubt that they would be showered with kudos. Instead, I see them being decried as isolationistic, with savage barbs poked at the intrusive examination we would need to apply to all foreign visitors. I doubt we could vacuum seal the borders and even if we could, I don't think you or I would like the place that America became as a result.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess I'm just cynical in that I have a sneaking suspicion that the political environment at almost any level works to morph all parties into what we currently see today, regardless of ideology.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was a Republican until Bush W. Now I register Democrat because they are the only real threat to Bush and the Republicans.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, as has been asked before, do you really think having almost any Democrat in the White House would have made much difference in how things have come out since 2000? I'm not so sure. If I'm not mistaken, most of what Bush has done has been with a lot of Democratic support following the bitch about it then vote for it model.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bull****! Hell yes things would have been different. Bush and company had planned on invading Iraq before he got elected, before 9-11. Not to mention every decision made out of the WH wouldn't have had to be run by the Carlylye group first.

And the Dems only voted to give Bush the right to go to war because Bush sold them on the idea that Saddam had WMD's. A lot of Democratic support my ass.

And this is just hoping, but hopefully a Dem would have put more emphasis on protecting the county ala closing or protecting the borders and ports. Not to mention doing more to integrate the warring factions of our intelligence services rather than give freedom medals to the idiots that allowed 9-11 to happyen. And Democracts also have historically been more concerned with the poor, so hopefully, probably New Orleans would have gone much better. Long answer for a stupid question.

So, in short HELL YES! things would have been differnet.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bull****! Hell yes things would have been different. Bush and company had planned on invading Iraq before he got elected, before 9-11. Not to mention every decision made out of the WH wouldn't have had to be run by the Carlylye group first.

And the Dems only voted to give Bush the right to go to war because Bush sold them on the idea that Saddam had WMD's. A lot of Democratic support my ass.

And this is just hoping, but hopefully a Dem would have put more emphasis on protecting the county ala closing or protecting the borders and ports. Not to mention doing more to integrate the warring factions of our intelligence services rather than give freedom medals to the idiots that allowed 9-11 to happyen. And Democracts also have historically been more concerned with the poor, so hopefully, probably New Orleans would have gone much better. Long answer for a stupid question.

So, in short HELL YES! things would have been differnet.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bull****! Hell yes things would have been different. Bush and company had planned on invading Iraq before he got elected, before 9-11. Not to mention every decision made out of the WH wouldn't have had to be run by the Carlylye group first.

And the Dems only voted to give Bush the right to go to war because Bush sold them on the idea that Saddam had WMD's. A lot of Democratic support my ass.

And this is just hoping, but hopefully a Dem would have put more emphasis on protecting the county ala closing or protecting the borders and ports. Not to mention doing more to integrate the warring factions of our intelligence services rather than give freedom medals to the idiots that allowed 9-11 to happyen. And Democracts also have historically been more concerned with the poor, so hopefully, probably New Orleans would have gone much better. Long answer for a stupid question.

Plus, you can't assume a Dem would have lied to the American people over and over again, as Bush has, until it happens. And finally, there is no way any Dem could have polarized this county to the extent our Commander in Chief has.

So, in short HELL YES! things would have been differnet.

KE

[ March 07, 2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeerilritorne
Member
Member # 2804

 - posted      Profile for kenmeerilritorne   Email kenmeerilritorne       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, as has been asked before, do you really think having almost any Democrat in the White House would have made much difference in how things have come out since 2000? I'm not so sure. If I'm not mistaken, most of what Bush has done has been with a lot of Democratic support following the bitch about it then vote for it model.
This based on the idea that any other president would have done what Bush did. If, as you say, Congress, especially Dems, are sheep following the Prez, then the most significant change possible would have been a different prez.

You know. Different p[ersons are, well, different.

Posts: 373 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

This based on the idea that any other president would have done what Bush did.

No, this is based on the idea that the same intelligence was available to them as the president, that many democrats had proposed and supported the idea that Iraq was a threat before Bush came into office, and, that aside, the same political pressures would have been in play to nip WMDs in the bud, etc, as was on the president. While I do not like Bush's policies, and am not saying he's absolutely truthful, it seems clear to me that there was plenty of evidence out there just for WMDs, and that there is also the very significant question of whether or not the blockade was working and the resulting question of, what now?

My question, then, is that if the above considerations are true, would not most presidents have had to do the same thing?

I really don't want to rehash the same tired arguments for Iraq again, but I guess given my question, it's inevitable.

quote:


If, as you say, Congress, especially Dems, are sheep following the Prez,

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I don't think the Dems are sheep following the president. I do think that it's factual that they've voted for most of the stuff he's put out there, war related or not, but certainly not everything. Again, same information, same pressures, same triangulation, same political currents to ride.

quote:

then the most significant change possible would have been a different prez.

You know. Different p[ersons are, well, different.

So, I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion.

Please remember that I'm not saying that there wouldn't have been any difference, just 'much difference'.

quote:

Long answer for a stupid question.

KE, I saw your rant, but I decline to reply to it when it's just an invitatin to a pissing contest with that sentence in your post. I come here for discussion, not shouting contests.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find not a scintilla of difference between the 98 rhetoric from the Democrats regarding Saddam and the rhetoric in 02. So there are inconvienient facts which indicate the contrary.

That being said, my vote in 04 was contingent on there being a big difference. The Dems would have seen the same "facts" on Saddam and reached the same conclusions and...

And. Would they have pulled the trigger? Clinton didn't. Would President Gore? No. I am uncertain he would have gone into Afganistan.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeerilritorne
Member
Member # 2804

 - posted      Profile for kenmeerilritorne   Email kenmeerilritorne       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My question, then, is that if the above considerations are true, would not most presidents have had to do the same thing?
No one 'had' to do anything. I can think ofbetter things than: hmmm. planes deliberately crashed in the WTC. Let's invade Iraq!

The fact that what has HAPPENED is now inevitable doesn't mean that it was inevitable then.

It's a funny form of prophecy, Turtledove-ing the past. Stephan Douglas wins the 1860 presidency. But the SOuth still secedes and we still have a Civil War. I tell ye, alternative history ain't what it used to be.

Posts: 373 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Would President Gore? No. I am uncertain he would have gone into Afganistan."

I think he would have been quickly impeached, were that the case, and President Lieberman certainly would have. At least after he got done telling us how holy he was.

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You mean the way Clinton was after the FIRST attempt to bring down the towers. Oh wait, that one was about sex.

If we didn't impeach Carter...

Bush would probably have been pres in 04 however.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
enochville
Member
Member # 2657

 - posted      Profile for enochville   Email enochville       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hopefully, the derail hasn't discouraged potential responders from answering the original post. I am still interested in why each of you decided to register to vote with the label you choose.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeerilritorne
Member
Member # 2804

 - posted      Profile for kenmeerilritorne   Email kenmeerilritorne       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You mean the way Clinton was after the FIRST attempt to bring down the towers. Oh wait, that one was about sex.
You know, Clinton was a scumbag, I'm all for Clinton-bashing. And 12 year-old digs piggy-backed on 8 year-old digs are fine by me too.

But a little relevance wouldn't hurt...

Posts: 373 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeerilritorne
Member
Member # 2804

 - posted      Profile for kenmeerilritorne   Email kenmeerilritorne       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
a)"Somehow, the idea of Don't **** With Them and They Won't **** With You is denied any chance to demonstrate what traction it might have."

b)It is my opinion that Clinton was happy to try that during his Presidency in the ME. See how well it worked?

****ing WIth Them isn't limited to Totally Invading them, capisch? A Tomahawk strike or three here, a bunch bombing sorties there, a continuation of the same old proxy government manipulations as in 'Who's *our* bastard over there now?'... that all falls under the heading of ****Ing With Them fer sure fer sure.

Real isolationist Libertarians understand that 'not ****ing with them' includes staying out of their affairs.

Our government wouldn't recognize real Libertarianism if it shot it in the face.

Posts: 373 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ignoring the derail.

I'm not a fan of political parties in general, and have no plans of ever registering with any of them. I guess the closest party I would identify with is the Republicans, or possibly Libertarian. And both of them piss me off to no end.

Republicans (and Dems, too, but I don't identify with them) have one primary purpose: to do what's best for the Republican party. I think that's pretty obvious to most of us here, in that both parties couldn't care less about what happens to the country as long as they get more votes. It's why we get gerrymandering, flip-flopping, a complete lack of ethics, and campaigns dedicated to beating the other team. Obviously not every politician in the party is like this (and it's far worse I'm sure in parliamentary systems like Canada and Britain), but it's the party. Government is a battle rather than a way of getting things done.

And the Libertarians, of course, have the opposite problem. Too much ideology, not enough common sense. I just get the feeling that they don't want to actually win, but rather just want to feel good about themselves. We all know the government isn't going to come to a screeching halt and go back to the 1700s style in the course of a week or a year or even a decade. And yet that seems to be what the Libertarians campaign for - a complete impossibility. Why bother joining a party that would rather take potshots at the current method rather than actually aiming to get things done? Besides which, I'm not that much of a libertarian. I can agree with some of it, especially where it seems obvious that it'd work best, but I don't necessarily agree with taking their ideology to the logical extreme. And that seems like a heresy in the current Libertarian party. It's all or nothing with them, and if that's the case all they'll ever get is nothing.

And now back to your regularly scheduled derailment...

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1