Am I the only one?

[llcoolw]

Sorry but I feel sometimes that our political parties do more damage than good. I can't say I was taught to back the President of the United States (whomever they may be), but I do. Not blindly and without criticism, but yet right or wrong I'm with them till the bitter end (in office). Out of 5 votes for President, I elected only one, yet I will defend their office. Calling Bush a war criminal doen't help anyone, impeaching Clinton was ridiculous. All this does breed contemp in the minority power, and when their turn to lead comes, it's all about payback. How many here can say they will back who ever wins the next Presidency? How many have said they will leave the country if the other guy wins? How many swore to leave after the last election and then followed through?

 

[okstateguy987]

Yes, political parties are detrimental to our government.

 

[GodsPeace]

Yes, political parties are detrimental to our government.

As warned about by the Founding Fathers.

So is getting tangled in foreign problems.

 

[Cimarron]

Yes, political parties are detrimental to our government.

So tell me what is the most successful government in modern times?

 

[okstateguy987]

So tell me what is the most successful government in modern times?

One which doesn't exist....one without political parties.

 

[GodsPeace]

So tell me what is the most successful government in modern times?

I am not a great fan of the two party system.

Sure, our system is better, but I think it can be better too. Not to mention it needs a revamping somehow. I think a fantastic third party could get it done. I am tired of it.

 

[naffigator]

As warned about by the Founding Fathers.

So is getting tangled in foreign problems.

Actually, only George Washington warned of those two. Political parties were already starting to form when he left office and their was a lot of hatred and discontent brewing in his cabinet, he was afraid that political parties at that stage in the countries development would tear the government apart.

Also his admonition about getting tangled in foreign problems was basically because he knew the country was too young and needed to create its own identity first. In fact he knew that we would end up going to war with England again, but said that in the long run they would turn out to be better friends then the French. So he knew alliances were inevitable, just thought we should wait a while.

 

[Cowboy2U]

Sorry but I feel sometimes that our political parties do more damage than good. I can't say I was taught to back the President of the United States (whomever they may be), but I do. Not blindly and without criticism, but yet right or wrong I'm with them till the bitter end (in office). Out of 5 votes for President, I elected only one, yet I will defend their office. Calling Bush a war criminal doen't help anyone, impeaching Clinton was ridiculous. All this does breed contemp in the minority power, and when their turn to lead comes, it's all about payback. How many here can say they will back who ever wins the next Presidency? How many have said they will leave the country if the other guy wins? How many swore to leave after the last election and then followed through?

I'll admit I said I'd leave the country if nobama wins...fact is I have too many irons oin the fire to really move. I'm just thinking his presidency will be disastrous financially for the middle income majority and social services will spiral financially putting more strain on the majority middle income. I'll do my best to support him if he's elected but I'll damn sure point out his mistakes and there will be no shortage of those once he moves into the White House.

 

[Cimarron]

I am not a great fan of the two party system.

Sure, our system is better, but I think it can be better too. Not to mention it needs a revamping somehow. I think a fantastic third party could get it done. I am tired of it.

Yes, things could be better and we should always strive to make improvements. (We could all be Republicans and then we would all be rich wouldn't we?)

Seriously though this shouldn't turn into a bash our government thread. That isn't constructive for making a good system better....

 

[SUPERMAN]

Yes, things could be better and we should always strive to make improvements. (We could all be Republicans and then we would all be rich wouldn't we?)

Seriously though this shouldn't turn into a bash our government thread. That isn't constructive for making a good system better....

I understand but I think our government has major flaws and cracks that are growing more severe with time.

ESPECIALLY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS!

Every candidate should be given equal funding from the get go. It should be about issues not who has deeper pockets to be on tv 24/7 so the media says they are the favorite.

PS. I am proud of America. Its only this country that I can things liek this and not be ran over by a tank.

 

[Cimarron]

I understand but I think our government has major flaws and cracks that are growing more severe with time.

ESPECIALLY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS!

Every candidate should be given equal funding from the get go. It should be about issues not who has deeper pockets to be on tv 24/7 so the media says they are the favorite.

PS. I am proud of America. Its only this country that I can things liek this and not be ran over by a tank.

Then I guess you will be voting for McCain?

 

[RxCowboy]

Political parties are good. They keep the government from swinging too far one way or the other. The debate between the parties is good. Even the mudslinging is good, because it helps to identify people with character issues whom we don't want in the government (although it is far from perfect... people often develop character issues once they're in the government).

Special interest groups are good. Almost all of us are represented by a special interest group. I know I am... pharmacists are certainly a special interest group and I belong to national organizations that have lobbyists that represent my interests as a professional. That is a good and necessary thing. Superman, it was a "special interest group" that lobbied congress for freedom in music and fought censorship in music. If not for that special interest group Al Gore's wife might have gotten her way and Maynard James Keenan might have his lyrics censored.

It is easy for people to demonize these things. But if you actually think about them you see that the demonization is usually kneejerk and poorly thought through.

 

[okstateguy987]

Actually, only George Washington warned of those two. Political parties were already starting to form when he left office and their was a lot of hatred and discontent brewing in his cabinet, he was afraid that political parties at that stage in the countries development would tear the government apart.

Washington believed political parties were detrimental to any government, in any stage of development. He duly noted the effects of parties in England, and the detriment they had on that government, which was not new and fragil by any means. That's the whole reason he warned against them, because of their affect on England's government...he didn't want that to translate into this new and pure type of limited government.

Just because parties started to form as he left office, in no way justifies the formation of the parties. All it says is that his peers and colleagues took no heed in what he said, and thought only for themselves, instead of the pure interests of the nation. You can have disagreements without forming rivaling factions.

 

[okstateguy987]

Yes, things could be better and we should always strive to make improvements. (We could all be Republicans and then we would all be rich wouldn't we?)

Seriously though this shouldn't turn into a bash our government thread. That isn't constructive for making a good system better....

It's not about bashing our government. Our Constitution, in it's pure form, is one of the greatest developments of government in all time.

It's about bashing the party system. The party system exploits the Constitution for it's own gain. Every party thinks it is representing America by representing it's voters, but the fact is, no party can represent every voter. Most voters are actually moderate, so they don't identify strongly with any party. The party system is not democratic, and does a disservice to the government, which is supposed to represent the people.

 

[naffigator]

So do we all just hold hands and sing Kumbayah? Like Rx said parties are not a bad thing. Of course you can go too far and be like Italy with something like 100 parties with ever changing coalitions causing more than 45 governments in 40 years. Political parties are basically just human nature, groups will divide up into sides. Where you run into problems is when you let partisanship override what is good for the country. The entire Congress during WWII and Joe Lieberman in 2006 are good examples of this.

 

[OldCowboy86]

It's not about bashing our government. Our Constitution, in it's pure form, is one of the greatest developments of government in all time.

It's about bashing the party system. The party system exploits the Constitution for it's own gain. Every party thinks it is representing America by representing it's voters, but the fact is, no party can represent every voter. Most voters are actually moderate, so they don't identify strongly with any party. The party system is not democratic, and does a disservice to the government, which is supposed to represent the people.

Amen.

 

[SUPERMAN]

Political parties are good. They keep the government from swinging too far one way or the other. The debate between the parties is good. Even the mudslinging is good, because it helps to identify people with character issues whom we don't want in the government (although it is far from perfect... people often develop character issues once they're in the government).

Special interest groups are good. Almost all of us are represented by a special interest group. I know I am... pharmacists are certainly a special interest group and I belong to national organizations that have lobbyists that represent my interests as a professional. That is a good and necessary thing. Superman, it was a "special interest group" that lobbied congress for freedom in music and fought censorship in music. If not for that special interest group Al Gore's wife might have gotten her way and Maynard James Keenan might have his lyrics censored.

It is easy for people to demonize these things. But if you actually think about them you see that the demonization is usually kneejerk and poorly thought through.

Lobbying and donating are two different issues. Fighting for rights is fine. Paying your way into the white house is a joke.

 

[RxCowboy]

Lobbying and donating are two different issues. Fighting for rights is fine. Paying your way into the white house is a joke.

The problem is, SUPERMAN, that people tend to see it as "fighting for your rights" when it is their special interest and "paying your way into the White House" when it is someone else's special interest. The fact of the matter is that special interest groups ultimately represent citizens, and that means you and I. Like I said, I belong to a couple of professional organizations that lobby and donate and represent the interests of pharmacists. I want them to do that and I support it wholly. What's more, if I support the SIG's and PACs representing pharmacy it would be altogether hypocritical for me to not tolerate the fact that there are other SIG's and PACs with interests that are sometimes at conflict with mine. For instance, often times the AMA is a SIG/PAC and a very powerful lobby, much more powerful than any of our pharmacy lobbying groups. Sometimes their stances are friendly to my profession, sometimes they're not. But denying them their right to lobby, donate, pay their way into, whatever, would also take away the rights of groups that protect my interests. Eliminating SIGs and PACs would also necessarily eliminate those that represent your interests. I don't think you really want to do that.

 

[SUPERMAN]

Then I guess you will be voting for McCain?

Maybe. I just get bothered by Obama and his lack of experience at anything. I am amazed people are blinded by his charismatic ways and dont see that there is no filling within his pie of lies.

Obama
Issue: We need alternative enegry how can we do this?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: We need to cut pork barrel spending how can this be done?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: We need to drill for oil in Alaska how can this be done environmentally and economically friendly?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: We need better health care how can we do this?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: Our public education system sucks. We need to rework our education system with statisically proven methods for enhanced learning how can we do this?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: Transportation costs are at an all-time high. How can we cut fueling costs and spur scientific development of alternative fuels and travel methods?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."


He seems like an idiot who will take a hands off approach to the government and try to pass the buck for his failures

 

[Cowboy2U]

Maybe. I just get bothered by Obama and his lack of experience at anything. I am amazed people are blinded by his charismatic ways and dont see that there is no filling within his pie of lies.

Obama
Issue: We need alternative enegry how can we do this?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: We need to cut pork barrel spending how can this be done?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: We need to drill for oil in Alaska how can this be done environmentally and economically friendly?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: We need better health care how can we do this?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: Our public education system sucks. We need to rework our education system with statisically proven methods for enhanced learning how can we do this?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."

Issue: Transportation costs are at an all-time high. How can we cut fueling costs and spur scientific development of alternative fuels and travel methods?
Answer: "Change we can believe in."


He seems like an idiot who will take a hands off approach to the government and try to pass the buck for his failures

Amen.