Liberals VS. Conservatives

[SpongeBob]

95% of the country supports one of the two parties

I bet that number would be a lot different if other parties got the exposure/money that the republican and democratic parties do. You have to keep in mind, a lot of people are uninformed when it comes to politics. Basically whatever they see on TV is what they accept.

 

[AaronP]

Minor political parties (there have been more than a thousand in the nation?s history) have mainly been short lived, although they have been responsible for raising issues that have been neglected by the major parties. Minor parties can be classified as single-issue (Prohibition party), ideological (Libertarian), and factional (Roosevelt?s Bull Moose party in 1912).

that is from some college course outline that I found on the net.

I think 3rd parties do serve their purpose of raising neglected issues. Their job isn't to win elections and get a third party into power, but to cause the 2 big parties to be more flexible. Nader's party did its job last election. With his measly little 4% or whatever, he bashed the democrats over the head, and forced them and will force them in the future to address certain issues that have arrison on the liberal side of things.

 

[gopunk]

here's a thought.... why can't politicians just run based on their own beliefs? i would much rather elect somebody who i know cares about his political position, than somebody who just does what his party does.

i'm kind of sick about hearing how "the democrats swayed some moderate republicans" and so on. wtf is this? some kind of sports game? why can't they just f*ing vote? are we supposed to take the fact that our elected representatives are being swayed by other elected representatives, as a good thing? this is very bad, imho! they should have some semblance of a conviction.

 

[AaronP]

I think reasonable men can disagree on this, and there can be an arguement either way, but if you look at the governments of some countries in Europe that have many parties, you'd laugh at how inneficient and corrupt they are.

VI. Pros and Cons of Two Party System (Consequences)

A. Advantages

1. Brings large nation together under one banner (big parties for big countries!)
2. More coherent government because elaborate multi-party coalitions unnecessary
3. Hinders political extremists

B. Disadvantages

1. Choice is restricted
2. May reduce participation
3. In theory, pushes parties toward fuzzy center
a. In practice, parties currently appear to be less centrist than Americans

 

[AaronP]

"here's a thought.... why can't politicians just run based on their own beliefs?"
----

you mean without political parties. Well when a government has to run a country with 280 million people, that just wouldn't work. When I go out with 2 or 3 friends we can't decide where to go to eat or what movie to see. How could a congress with 535 different independant people, (or 4 or 5 large factions) decide and reach common ground on important govt policy. It just doesn't work.

 

[gopunk]

do you really think that bi-partisanship hinders political extremists though (this being my largest concern...)? i don't see how it would...

 

[gopunk]

you mean without political parties. Well when a government has to run a country with 280 million people, that just wouldn't work. When I go out with 2 or 3 friends we can't decide where to go to eat or what movie to see. How could a congress with 535 different independant people, (or 4 or 5 large factions) decide and reach common ground on important govt policy. It just doesn't work.

well, i see your point. i guess i was thinking more about when it came down to a vote (choices being yes or no) than when it came to drawing up the actual proposal.

i still can't help but think there has to be a better way though. to me, this is like getting married to some fat b!tch. sure, you could have gotten a fat, smelly, old b!tch, but still... there has to be a better alternative

 

[AaronP]

I think to some extent people do vote for who's the better man, and not just the party. I am a pretty hardcore republican, but I voted for a democrat for a pretty important seat in the state assemble in the last elections because I know the republican canidate personally, and the guy is a dick and a liar. The democrat was a loser to, but I wanted to stick it to this republican guy. The democrat won pretty big when people thought the republican would win, mostly because of the dick factor I think.

 

[Texmaster]

<< This is CLASSIC liberal elitism right here, thinking I need your blessing before proving I'm not a bigot. LOL >>



OOO!! OOO!!!!! This is mine!!

The labels really are just representatives of groups of people who share common interests.

I used "crazy liberals" because not all Liberals are nuts but I knew I would attract the emotional ones first putting it in there

Sometimes its done for fun (like my santa thread), other times its meant as an extremist view from one side.

Not a big deal really.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Well thats Tex for ya... Most of his posts exist only to synonymize(<--- is that a word?) radical idiocy with liberals so he can try to enforce his associations with both sides... You just gotta know how to sift through his BS...

As for the rest of us, you guys are correct - its best to take it issue by issue and not pigeonhole yourself to one form of thinking. >>



All this posturing and you were not even man enough to debate it openly on that thread. How sad. But predictable.

 

[Dark54555]

I've gotta throw in a Simpsons quote at this point.

"Cause those liberal freaks go too far."

 

[busmaster11]

<<

<< Well thats Tex for ya... Most of his posts exist only to synonymize(<--- is that a word?) radical idiocy with liberals so he can try to enforce his associations with both sides... You just gotta know how to sift through his BS...

As for the rest of us, you guys are correct - its best to take it issue by issue and not pigeonhole yourself to one form of thinking. >>



All this posturing and you were not even man enough to debate it openly on that thread. How sad. But predictable. >>



You mean your Santa thread? Whats there to debate? If they're loonies, they're loonies... nuff said... But for you to make a blanket statement about liberals, that they're representative of liberals, and in doing so give the impression that all liberals are loonies, thats what I'd take offense to, and I'm not even all that liberal...

Someone brought up loonies who go shoot up abortion clinics... I'd say liberals, or otherwise, are "man" enough not to use that advantage and label all conservatives one and the same... Apparently you're not...

 

[hungrypete]

begin namecalling in
5
4
3
2
1
...

 

[MisterNi]

Well, I think my American History Professor described the whole liberal/conservative very well. Basically, conservatives like to stick with a strict interpretation of the constitution and liberal like a loose interpretation of the constitution. As you've problebly guessed, they differ on a fundamental level, that's why you see such zealotry when it comes to political lines.

 

[gopunk]

misterni, yes that's true, but they only do that stuff when it agrees with their preexisting beliefs. people look for ways to interpret the constitution to make it agree with them, they don't pick a way to interpret and go from there.

I used "crazy liberals" because not all Liberals are nuts but I knew I would attract the emotional ones first putting it in there

i suspected such.... i understand that it may be amusing for you watch people get pissed off, but imho, it really takes away from the discussion. maybe it's just me, but i'd rather see an argument about the topic at hand, rather than see it degrade into the standard conservative vs liberal debate.