A prime example of George W Bush's stupidity

[Lurch1982]

You heard wrong. You can be considered a "youth" all through your twenties (depending who you ask).

No, its much harder to keep bringing up an issue in the media if the politician addresses it clearly and precisely (as Newt, Gore and Clinton did with theirs). You don't hear about babies in trash cans because it doesn't happen. When it does, you hear about it. Civil liberties are a different story and really have no clear connection with anything.

Media bias is completely overblown. It isn't as bad as people claim on EITHER side, and there really is no overly unbalanced channel out there (including FoxNews) with the possible exception of new programs that aren't considered major media outlets (like say, the 700 Club news report or something). Those would be biased...the major networks (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, FoxNews/Fox Affiliates, MSNBC, etc) are not as biased as people claim and to say that they are extremely biased is simply incorrect and obviously not true. Most media outlets get their stories from the same place and if you flip the channels, you generally see the exact same stories on.

Actually, there are rules against parties being successful. In order to get on the ballot in many places, third parties need to go out and get a certain percentage of signatures of people in their district. Republicans and Democrats get on with no questions asked, even if one of the parties will only carry 100 out of 5000 potential votes (as seen in some congressional districts). Government matching fund rules were also changed before the 2000 election because they feared Nader or one of the two factions of Perot's reform party would get the required 5% of the national vote for government funding, so they raised the requirement to (I believe) 8%. This not only puts it out of reach for any small party, but also out of the reach of even the largest non-democrat/republican party. You cannot run a campaign without money (unless you're going grassroots, and those rarely work on large-scale elections) and the parties in power have insured that they will not be threatened by any upstart parties or candidates. The system is set up so third parties cannot get on the ballot in many cases (obviously, the recent circus in Cali is an exception) and third parties cannot get funding. Perot was successful because he could, out of pocket, purchase chunks of prime-time TV and go on to talk about deficits and the like. You think the Green Party can afford that? Or the Libertarian party? Or the Socialist? Or the remanents of the Reform Party? Or the Raving Loony Monster Party? No. They can't.

[Lurch1982]

Two parties don't fit with the current form of US politics.

Revolutionary: Federalists v. Anti-federalists.

Civil War: Republicans (north) v. Democrats (south)

late industrial is where it starts breaking down. The progressive movement started changing the parties, leading into other parties (like the Bull Moose party).

Once you start getting to FDR, you see the traditional roles of the parties flip-flop. Civil rights movement further stretches the parties thin. People like the late Strom Thurmond start the Dixiecrats (southern democrats, pro-segregation). Then you start getting into various neo-progressive movements on both sides.

Take a democrat today. Democrat generally used to mean you fell onto a certain range on the political spectrum...yet it doesn't. A democrat from San Fransisco is certainly different than one from one of the southern states (San Fran is far more 'liberal' while southern democrats are moderate to conservative).

Two parties don't even begin to address the wants and desires of voters out there. One of the top reasons (after pure apathy) on why people don't vote is "don't like candidates" or "lack of a true choice." There really is a lack of a choice because the two parties are doing what's best for careers and parties, not people and the country. Look at me with a straight face and tell me that politicians in Washington are not protecting themselves first and foremost. Why don't we have any medical policy overhauls? Why don't they fix SS in a manner that will work? Why won't they end useless programs and pork barrel spending? Its party politics and this situation is eroding the electorial system of this country by promoting apathy.

[Lurch1982]

Except Clinton wasn't smoking weed in his 30s (while Bush allegedly was snorting well into his 30s). You're mistakening sexual misconduct with what I'm talking about, and thus making yourself look dumb. Quit while you're behind.

[Lurch1982]

Except that it isn't relivant to what I'm talking about.

[AJ Middleton]

BOLT'S CLAUSE: Anyone who uses Clinton's affair as a reason to seriously bash him is instantly an idiot.

[Link47]

You know whats funny? Democrats out number Republicans 2 to 1, so then why are Republicans in power? Because democrats can't get their act together!

Republicans rule. *thumbs up*

[AJ Middleton]

^^Why is that funny? You're a friggin idiot- the perfect example of an average ignorant American.

Originally posted by Link47:
Because democrats can't get their act together!

But that's the only truth in your post. Why the hell do you have so many candidates for the primary!? If you want to tackle Bush, it would make sense to pick 2 or 3 strong candidates. Having all 183681692 makes the Democrats look all unorganized and weak. Pitiful.

[ October 13, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: BoltDragoon ]

[AJ Middleton]

[Double post.]

[ October 12, 2003, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: BoltDragoon ]