What if our Governement ....

[wrag]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
that's our two-party system for ya!  you're right, it's not about electing the candidate who's best for the country, it's about beating the other side.  

I'll add an end to ballot access restrictions to my list of changes a couple posts up...

Some believe we no longer have a 2 party system.

From the number of politicians that are members of the Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations.................

I've come to believe all we are getting is a dog and pony show from the same source...............

watched as the Dems tried to get several things for Klinton and the Reps said NOPE to much power for one man, THEN after the election they gave all those things and more to our current pres................

SOOOOO IMHO don't really matter if you elect a Dem or a Rep same thing is gonna happen....................

Love to see Ron Paul get in BUT I figure if he does he won't finish a full term due to impeachment or assassination...........

If your curious about why I think that way do a lookup of those organizations and READ!

[bsdaddict]

I'm familiar with those organizations, and I agree (and have previously stated) that there's hardly a lick of difference between the two major parties.  It's the welfare state vs. the warfare state, although now some (most?) of the dems now have adopted the neo-cons' foreign policy.  That's why, prior to Ron Paul announcing his candidacy I voted Libertarian, and will continue to do so if RP doesn't win the GOP nomination.

[Charon]

Some believe we no longer have a 2 party system.

From the number of politicians that are members of the Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations.................

I've come to believe all we are getting is a dog and pony show from the same source...............

watched as the Dems tried to get several things for Klinton and the Reps said NOPE to much power for one man, THEN after the election they gave all those things and more to our current pres................

I agree. Things I would have dismissed as tinfoil hat material a decade ago are just too hard for me to downplay, anymore.

I don't think it is necessarily a formal conspiracy, but we do seem to have an awful lot of like-minded people leading "both" political parties and leading media organizations and, of course, corporations. The positive thing is that they still have to manipulate public opinion to get their way -- they can't just dictate policy. And, they have been rebuked -- such as the illegal amnesty backlash.

The Internet is the real threat to these folks. And, it's not easy at this point to dismantle or morph or nudge it into a controllable box. One might expect to see efforts linked to homeland security or online pedophile predators as a back door approach.

Charon

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Charon
The positive thing is that they still have to manipulate public opinion to get their way -- they can't just dictate policy.

yeah, but They own the media...    

And, they have been rebuked -- such as the illegal amnesty backlash.

The Internet is the real threat to these folks.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by wrag
Have you read Robert Heinlein?

In 1966, he wrote a thought-provoking science fiction novel called The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In Heinlein's book, the moon is a penal colony run with an iron fist by the Authority.

Like American colonists, they finally got fed up and declared their independence.

They won the revolution, but discovered that designing and establishing a small and limited government was harder than they expected.

Professor Bernardo de la Paz, the Thomas Jefferson of their revolution, made one extraordinary proposal for making and keeping government small and limited.

When he heard the framers of their constitution propose a two house Congress, he proposed this:

"Instead of following tradition, I suggest one of legislators, another whose single duty it is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority...while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third, is it not likely that you would be better off without it?"

Let the Heinlein Hypothesis sink in. One House needs a two-thirds vote to pass laws and regulations, a two-thirds vote for all government departments, programs, and projects, a two-thirds vote to spend and tax. The other House
needs only a one-third vote to repeal laws and regulations, a one-third vote to reduce or remove government departments, programs, and projects, a one-third vote to reduce or remove government spending and taxing.

What if the federal government were set up this way? What if the Senate needed a two-thirds vote to pass legislation and funding and taxes? What if the House of Representatives only needed a one-third vote to repeal? A one-third vote to reduce or remove the legislation and funding and taxes?

What if your state government were set up this way?

Heinlein's idea has merit. But so did the original thought, and intentions' of the founding fathers' of the United States. Do you know what would do Heinlein's ideal government in, the same way our's has been twisted?

Lobbying. Political parties. Big business throwing big money.

All the things' that have weakened and contorted our Constitution and our government, would rampantly destroy Heinlein's idea, as well.

If you look back in history, and look at the demographics' of the U.S. During the ratification of the Constitution, you'll notice that as a country, the original Thirteen colonies' were very much aligned into the same group, almost as a whole. Many shared religion, economic ties, moral standards...The U.S. wasn't the Multi-special-interest-group-free-for-all it is today. Heck, at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, political parties' weren't even a gleam in somebody's eye. Of course, Proffesor De la Paz might have considered these things...maybe not. I don't think that our founding fathers intended us to come to this.

[Odee]

Originally posted by Airscrew
You give it that long?  some days I look around and I get the feeling we got maybe 20 years before everything just falls apart.

I try to be optomistic...  But concur with your assessment.

[lazs2]

The one thing that both the left and the right have in common is that they want less government by the other and more by them.

I find it amusing to see the lefties on here claim that there is too much government.. yet.. want social security and now... socialized medicine and benifiets for illegals and public schools... it is all so funny.

The reason it gets worse is because the laws passed by the left get used when the right gets into power against the people and the laws passed by the right get used against the people when the left gets in..

you send tanks against the black panthers or the branch dividians depending on if the left or right is in power.. but... you always send tanks against the people.

lazs

[JB88]

i have never in my life heard such depressing projections from people about the future of this country.

fair weather fans.

[Charon]

fair weather fans.

This analogy is the depressing one. We have a lot of people who look on politics as a sport. You have the favorite team, believe in its chances, root for it out of emotion and, for the most part, turn on the tube on game day and wait for the outcome. Actually, professional wrestling is the most apt comparison, imo.

The word "fan" = spectator. It implies a process over which the fan has little direct control and is merely an observer. It's pretty clear, that while US fans are allowed to pick a president every 4 years, or a congressman or senator, we have little power initially to influence the selection of "choices."

Personally, I like to look at politics like a company. I am technically the CEO, or at least a Board member. The president and congressmen are not stars, royalty, celebrities, "above us," our betters, etc. -- they are my ****ing employees. I want them to do the job that best promotes my corporate goals. They have to save money and spend wisely and work hard. If they don't they should be fired 4 years down the road.

However, the current political affirmative action system means I have to hire someone that I personally don't want to hire. There may be a lot of highly qualified candidates out there but they are never allowed to fill out the employment form and get an interview.

A variety of guys may actually be able to get into the race, but only certain ones are given the party support, funding or media attention to make it to the finals. Look at the debates. The second tier guys are treated as an afterthought. Their accomplishments in the campaign are under reported. Their debate time cut compared to the anointed. The are dismissed by thought leaders in the media and punditry out of hand. They are there for window dressing, though they can stick around long enough to be a spoiler here and there.

The front runners are part of a uniparty in this election, and I even contend that the differences between a Bush and a Gore, Kerry or Clinton are not all THAT far apart. Bush Senior as well. Rudy and Hill-o-Bama -- Rudy could be a Democrat as easily as a Republican.

At least they still find it necessary to go through the motions every 4 years.

Charon

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I like Heinlein's ideas...

I have a few ideas for changes to our government;

1. For every law passed, 2 must be repealed.

[/b]

Yeah, smart. So, given enough time, there wont be any laws.

You fail.

[Odee]

Spot on assessment there Charon.

[bsdaddict]

excellent analysis, Charon.  The media plays a big part in reducing politics to a spectator sport, all they care about is who has the best soundbite, not who has the best track record.  I think your earlier mention of the internet as being a threat to The Powers That Be is a valid assessment as well, just look at the difference in the way Ron Paul is received on the internet vs. by the main stream media.

(For some reason this song was playing in my head while I was writing this...)

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down